share

For All You Guys Who Say Players Should Stay in School

surve
surve's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/19/2010
Posts: 2890
Points: 4502
Offline
For All You Guys Who Say Players Should Stay in School

Here is something you have to think about in regards to today's drafts. Playing 4 years of college basketball now is probably looked at more as a negative rather than a positive.

Scouts are into upside and when they look at an 18-19 year old, they see a guy who can improve. When they look at a 21-22 year old they look at a guy who has probably shown his best side already.

I think the first senior in last years draft was Booker and then James of Texas followed him. Booker and James were picked by teams not looking for potential superstars, because it is unlikely that either of them will be. They were looking for smart, mature, NBA ready guys who dont have to wait on developing their bodies and can step in and add solid minutes and provide help to a team right away.

This year we have Jimmer, then Nolan Smith, Kenneth Faried, etc....

But check this out....

Some may say Jordan Hamilton made a mistake by coming out as a soph....but I dont. In fact, I believe the longer Hamilton stayed, the worse his stock would become. Even if he became a better all around player the perception is that the longer you stay in college the less NBA ready you are...whether that readiness is physical or mental. Hamilton could not have improved his stock, I dont see it....I remember when Vashon Lenard declared for the draft and was selected by the Bucks...then went back to school and played his senior year. The plus side to that was he became Minnesota's all time leading scorer, the flip side was, he had a better junior season and he started his professional career in the CBA. He may not be a great example because he was never drafted in the 1st round and he still turned out to be a good NBA player.

Does anyone here believe that Isiah Thomas made a mistake by coming out this year? I dont. He felt he was ready and honestly, I dont see how he could have improved his status.

Perception is reality and the fact is that a 4 year college player like Scottie Reynolds is only valued as being a great college player. The fact that he played for 4 years is more of an indictment that he is more of a college player than an NBA player. I am speaking in today's terms of course because if Pat Ewing were living in today's times, no way he wouldve stayed in college for 4 years.


LBJKD
LBJKD's picture
Registered User
Joined: 07/22/2011
Posts: 41
Points: 72
Offline
Thats the truth, when you see

Thats the truth, when you see a 4 year player you assume great role player. The only 4 year player I can think of that has been a all-star in recent years in Brandon Roy. other then that everyone else just solid players IF they get drafted. liek lawson, hansborough, reddick.

theTKOshow
theTKOshow's picture
Registered User
Joined: 07/11/2011
Posts: 66
Points: 155
Offline
i know what you mean

You bring up good points surve but there are a few things i gotta argue. staying in school is not for everyone, you're right. If you're dominating in college, you're not going to get any better playing against that same competition. there are players tho that are simply riding that "potential" factor they own and dont develop the way they should because they leave early. this is where all the arguing begins. an example could be byron mullens. Definitely shouldve stayed another year or two in college where he couldve become a more focal point of the offense at ohio st and developped his game more. Now he is sitting on the bench in oklahoma or in the d-league still only his potential label is begin to lose credibility since hes reaching that age as u mentioned. then again i read he was brought up poor and in different foster homes and you cant blame him for wanting that nba paycheque so he live comfortably for the rest of his life. many different factors add up to all this. you can also look at certain guys like harden, sullinger, barnes who stayed in the past or chose to stay this year and probably did not hurt their stocks much but will get teh necessary playing time to continue to improve their games. Im all honesty, if a player is legitmately going to try to add new things to their games, workout and put in the effort, staying in college will help cuz of the playing time but if youre not you might as well go and cash in.

I think the nba is arguing for this rule just to protect the owners more. the more you see the players, the better the scouting report on them is and the safer the pick could be. if everyone had to stay in college for 2 or 3 yrs, then you would technically eliminate that "player's potential" problem because all of them would be in the same category.

so as i said at the beginning, you bring up good points that need to be considered but i dont think leaving early is best for everyone because although it could be the difference between being picked 10th and 20th but it could also be the difference between being the league for 10-15 yrs as opposed to 5-7 yrs

surve
surve's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/19/2010
Posts: 2890
Points: 4502
Offline
again, we are always

again, we are always factoring in the length of a career in terms of basketball success. every player wants to be successful but even if they are not, they will have had the chance to make an enormous amount of money while pursuing a dream or just doing something that they would have done for free anyway.

I am an engineer. I can choose to be an engineer at a company where I can continue to learn and better myself as an engineer everyday. I can take that experience to new heights and possibly get another job where I can showcase and earn more. I also can just take a job focusing on the specialized engineering skills that I ALREADY have and I can milk that and be secure for a good while. The point is every situation is different. Everyone's motivation is not the same, some just want to make some millions and anything beyond the 5-7 years is "gravy" to them. The objective is to have as good a run as possible. You do realize that some players made a living being bench players for 13-15 years dont you? Look at Danny Ferry. You also have guys that go from HS to the pros or play one or two years in college and stick around on rosters for 10 years just off talent alone.

My point about this thread was to get away from the "loss of wages argument". Also to stay away from the monetary argument as much as possible. My point is perception...but you cant leave monetary stability and motivation out of the argument....because contrary to some people's belief's...being a professional athlete is a job.

Hansbrough to use as an example came back to finish out a great college career, and that he did. You are correct, every situation is different. I do think on the majority of situations, 4 year players are deemed as having little upside on the next level. There are some exceptions, as Jimmer had a better Sr year than he did as a Jr.

RUDEBOY_
RUDEBOY_'s picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/10/2010
Posts: 7372
Points: 13258
Online
Even though guys like Eddy

Even though guys like Eddy Curry,Darius Miles, Kwame Brown and DeShawn Stevenson (Might) be millions..I Bet they wish they had went to college to learn how to play the game...Their careers could've been so much better....

M-DYMES
M-DYMES's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/14/2009
Posts: 2643
Points: 6868
Offline
"the perception is that the

"the perception is that the longer you stay in college the less NBA ready you are"

I disagree with that statement. The reason teams like Fresh/Soph players is...

1. They are viewed as having a greater upside as they probably have not reached near the prime level of their game.

2. More years to play. (But teams get caught up in this and shouldn't as more often then not players play on multiple teams in their careers)

3. The possiblitiy of getting a great talent later in the draft, when he could have ended up as a lotto or top 5 pick in future drafts.

4. Their dominance in college may be more b/c of their abilities as players as opposed to a Senior whose's stats may be a product of the system and development within that particular one.

surve
surve's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/19/2010
Posts: 2890
Points: 4502
Offline
the last Senior to be the # 1

the last Senior to be the # 1 overall pick was Kenyon Martin...I dont know when the next time we will see another. How does Martin's career stack against others after him...say Lebron, Howard, Rose, Griffin, Bogut, etc...

I know, there are exceptions to the rule such as Duncan and Ewing but in this day and age, seniors are hardly looked at as potential superstars. Even Jimmer, people expect him to be a good player, but who expects him to be another Nash?

surve
surve's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/19/2010
Posts: 2890
Points: 4502
Offline
m-dimes

I said the perception, I didnt say it was fact.

how many players can you name that were more NBA ready as Freshman or Sophomores that stayed til they were juniors or seniors? thats the whole paradox of the situation. if they were more ready, they wouldve left. if Ewing played today, he probably would not have made it to his junior season at Gtown. Did his 4 years of college ready him more for the NBA, I think it did. So there is SOME truth as to more years in college readying your physical and mental aspects...at the same time, my man said above...cant get better playing against same level competition.

A player may actually be ready but the scouts have to view them as such.

also, you say more years to play...what is a difference in the age of a 19 year old and a 22 year old? Kevin Willis played til he was damn near 44 and played at a high level.

I didnt say these things are true or absolute, but I gotta say that a scout's perception of a guy who stays 3-4 years in college is either...

  • he will be a solid but not spectacular pro who can help a team immediately
  • he is a late bloomer
  • his game was just not ready to be translated to the next level after his fresh/soph season
surve
surve's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/19/2010
Posts: 2890
Points: 4502
Offline
perception is that the older

perception is that the older a player is and the longer he stays in school the less his upside. which is opposite for the younger player.

storm33
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 112
Points: 112
Offline
No easy answer

There's no one-size-fits-all solution to this question. Frankly, some players benefit from college/staying an extra year, and some don't.

To give a modern example, Josh Selby would've been a top-10 pick if he had been able to enter the draft out of high school. But he went to Kansas for a year, stumbled, and was a second round pick. For him, leaving early would have helped.

But Jimmer Fredette and JJ Redick are two instances of college players that improved their stock by returning for another year of school.

In general, it usually helps a player to leave early if he wants to get drafted, but that's not always the case, as some players take advantage of extra college development.

surve
surve's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/19/2010
Posts: 2890
Points: 4502
Offline
rudeboy

Even though guys like Eddy Curry,Darius Miles, Kwame Brown and DeShawn Stevenson (Might) be millions..I Bet they wish they had went to college to learn how to play the game...Their careers could've been so much better....

IF that is their main motivation is to be great. Not everyone wants to be Jordan or LBJ. Some just want to make it to the next level and be financially secure, while getting paid to do something they would be doing on the street for free anyway.

Also, playing college ball doesnt necessarily teach you how to play the game....lol. You ever heard of "learning on the job"? That is relative to the school and the coach. Some guys went to college 2 and 3 years and still didnt learn anything.

theTKOshow
theTKOshow's picture
Registered User
Joined: 07/11/2011
Posts: 66
Points: 155
Offline
perception is that the older

perception is that the older a player is and the longer he stays in school the less his upside. which is opposite for the younger player

I think the main reason for that is because over the years you see how their game is developping. If someone gets drafted as a freshman or as a senior, by the time they are 22 we will know just as much about them from watching them in the nba or in college. If durant stayed in college 4 yrs, we'd still see hes a guy a that shoots lights out and is close to greatness once he fully rounds out his game.

The point im trying to make is that surve is right that youll probably get drafted higher because there is still that chance of you developping aspects of your game for a few years and the nba teams would be able to monitor daily in their practices BUT i dont think it makes a player any better to leave immediately or stay a few years. a guy like durant and oden dominated teh year they got drafted, they showed they were ahead of that group of players so it only made sense to go on and challenge themselves some more. but if youre not clearly better than every player all the time, i dont see why risking the nba draft would be benefitial (especially if we're not considering money) when you may end up riding the bench. if you're a top 10 pick guaranteed and know youd get those 20-30 mins a game then go for it but make sure youre ready cuz if u didnt dominate ncaa, itll only be that much tougher in the nba

tareef32
Registered User
Joined: 05/24/2011
Posts: 16
Points: 9
Offline
At storm33. Josh Selby could

At storm33. Josh Selby could have been a top 10 pick if he went back for one more year of college and proved himself.

surve
surve's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/19/2010
Posts: 2890
Points: 4502
Offline
^

that is true too....but Selby couldve been worse his 2nd year and been relegated to the D-League from that point and not even get an immediate shot at the NBA. One good thing about Selby is, his one bad year could be attributed to a fluke, as many questions as there are about him, he still got the benefit of the doubt simply because we dont know much about him outside of his HS days. Staying for his soph season couldve just affirmed that some of those questions had validity. Not to mention it wouldve been more guards stealing shine like Rivers, Teague, Kabongo, etc....not to mention guys who may surprise early on like Josiah Turner.

I dont think college was a good idea for Selby or Richmond....they only went because the basically "had to"

but...back on topic....the main idea of my post is...this....

is a player de-valued more the longer he stays in school? When you watch the draft they talk about some of these guys like they are Methusalah...like Wes Johnson, much was made about the fact that he was like 24 years old in the draft.

Hitster
Hitster's picture
Registered User
Joined: 08/17/2010
Posts: 3525
Points: 2590
Offline
Don't forget that in 2010

Don't forget that in 2010 Udoh and Johnson were both 23 or 23 in the year they were drafted and had both changed colleges and at out a year so doing that certainly helped them. I agree that the 4 year college superstar eg Sampson, Duncan and Ewing etc is most likely over.

surve
surve's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/19/2010
Posts: 2890
Points: 4502
Offline
right, Udoh and Johnson were

right, Udoh and Johnson were not seniors but even still they were considered ancient....I remember they actually implied that Johnson was an old man as if he wouldve went a couple of slots higher if he were a 19-20 year old.

Meditated States
Meditated States's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/29/2009
Posts: 2827
Points: 579
Offline
I personally have seen it hurt more than help

It lowers your stock when they start seeing what you did wrong or saying he did not lead the team to a title. To me it hurts often. Not all the time, but damn I seen a lot of guys get killed by staying in.

J-Bo
Registered User
Joined: 12/17/2009
Posts: 22
Points: 2
Offline
Martell Webster is only one

Martell Webster is only one year older than Wes Johnson... LMFAO

surve
surve's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/19/2010
Posts: 2890
Points: 4502
Offline
^

sometimes neither the guy nor the team improves by them staying around. Like I said about Lenard, about the only thing he accomplished by returning to Minnesota was he bacame leading scorer for the school, but his senior year was a drop off from the year before.

tareef32
Registered User
Joined: 05/24/2011
Posts: 16
Points: 9
Offline
Even though players can

Even though players can develop in the nba I think that guys whose game is raw should spend more time in college because the player would still get game time which would provide an opportunity to develop. Players such as Avery Bradly who has talent but doesn't get game time because he is to raw. If he stayed in college it would provide him a chance to develop his all around game and make him a better pro. I agree 4 year players stocks arent that high but I think players should have to do atleast 2 yrs in college before going pro

M-DYMES
M-DYMES's picture
Registered User
Joined: 12/14/2009
Posts: 2643
Points: 6868
Offline
"I said the perception, I

"I said the perception, I didnt say it was fact."

I know and I am disagreeing with the fact that the perception is that.

surve
surve's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/19/2010
Posts: 2890
Points: 4502
Offline
Martell Webster is only one

Martell Webster is only one year older than Wes Johnson... LMFAO

and if I am not mistaken, Tyler Hansbrough is over one year older than Josh McRoberts

ItsVictorOladipo
ItsVictorOladipo's picture
Registered User
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 2026
Points: 4675
Offline
Martell Webster is only one

Martell Webster is only one year older than Wes Johnson... LMFAO

and if I am not mistaken, Tyler Hansbrough is over one year older than Josh McRoberts

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerryd Bayless is only 6 months older than Jimmer Fredette. And I will guarentee just about anything that Bayless will play better in the next NBA regular season.

iguapops420
iguapops420's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/05/2009
Posts: 2264
Points: 1607
Offline
Some players are good enough

Some players are good enough to play as freshman, but some aren't. Personally, I think there would be less players who leave early that fail, than players who stay longer and have simpy succesful career but not star worthy. It's part of the reason why the 80's were so good to me. Players stayed at college longer and were usually mentally ready after 4 years. Win win and a college education if not.

NowitzkiFan41
Registered User
Joined: 08/26/2011
Posts: 11
Points: 3
Offline
Agreed, somewhat

First off, I agree 100% with the OP's Scottie Reynolds lines. I am a HUGE Villanova fan and maybe the last time I saw his name on a recent post was in April..

Players who are one and done (and sophmores) are always the better than the seniors.. Look at John Wall, LeBron, Blake, Rose, do I need to go on?

Players like Tyler Hansbrough, and more who stayed all four years had their NBA stock drop.

Really, the only pro of staying at college all four years is tht the player is showing he is loyal. When a school gives a scholarship, they usually expect it to be for all four years. I feel that loyalty is important, but some don't (not saying great one and dones aren't loyal, most are, but saw a pro career, making millions instead of school.)

Maybe they should make a new scholarship, where a young student-athlete, who has big pro talent can only be expected to stay for one or two years.

Or maybe its just me.

surve
surve's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/19/2010
Posts: 2890
Points: 4502
Offline
Kyle Singler did not do

Kyle Singler did not do anything for his NBA career by staying an extra year except lower his stock. Singler couldve left Duke damn near anytime and wouldve gone just as high or higher.

Yeah, I know he got his degree from Duke and blah blah....well, he got that degree 2 years ago, after they won the title, lol. The ONLY reason I saw him coming back is because he wanted to repeat as national champs because he knew Kyrie was coming. Ok, let's say hypothetically he left after his sophomore campaign, such as McRoberts did. Duke tuition is about $50k per year, McRoberts done made over $3mil in the league....you're telling me he cant afford to go back and get that degree? On top of that, McRoberts will be in the league another few years, then after that, he will be overseas. The whole point of getting a degree is to earn a living with it, something these players are already doing....without it.

iguapops420
iguapops420's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/05/2009
Posts: 2264
Points: 1607
Offline
I agree he did nothing for

I agree he did nothing for his stock, bu5t don't you think it'sd possibl;e that he's just not that good of a player and in 4 years at Duke it was finally realized and able to spare a team from giving him a first round guarantee based of percieved ability. Him being a second rounder will more than likely help his NBA career IMO. Expectations wion't be as high. Again, it's why 4 years of school(or 3 in some cases) is so valuable. Able to TRUELY see what a guy can do instead of predicting.

surve
surve's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/19/2010
Posts: 2890
Points: 4502
Offline
^

yes, but I am not arguing from the NBA and scouts point of view, I was arguing from Singler's POV. I dont think 4 years shows what a guy can truly do, its only perception. At best, it only shows how good he can do in a particular system . Had he been at Nevada like Babbitt, no way he wouldve stayed 4 years.

I have no problem with Singler staying 4 years, obviously he was happy at Duke, more power to him. I dont think he stayed because he was trying to improve his stock either, he pretty much knew he wasnt a lock for the 1st round last year either. Him staying I think did hurt him though, as a junior, he was good but there were questions....as a senior he wasnt as good and most of those questions appeared to be answered.

iguapops420
iguapops420's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/05/2009
Posts: 2264
Points: 1607
Offline
@surve. Singler was expected

@surve. Singler was expected to be a late lottery pick after his junior year. A team would have wasted a pick on him as they would have expected more than what they would have ultimately got from him. Staying four years ultimately showed what he truely was. You think that if Andre Drummond stays all four years he isn't still going to be the #1 pick? Probably so, just that he'll be more ready to come in and be closer to a 20-10 player. IMO, staying four years learning to be a go-to player and becoming comfortable in that role, would probably make it an easier transition for true #1 options. I personally wonder if some guys like Ewing didn't have inflated numbers due to the fact that it was a big mans league during the 90's.

I understand where you're coming from and have absolutely no problem with people becoming pro's when they choose, as I'm actually a proponent to players coming out of highschool if they want, simply debating for the side o9f staying in school. I could make a good argument for either side.

surve
surve's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/19/2010
Posts: 2890
Points: 4502
Offline
^

ok, try and follow me on this, I see what you are saying....but just because Singler was projected that high doesnt mean by draft night he wouldnt have slipped out of the 1st round. I dont think any pick is a wasted pick. I see what you are saying however that a team didnt waste a high pick on him in his junior year because in his senior year he was a 2nd rounder. Thats my point of this post....here's why.

Scouts have been watching Singler since he came out of HS. As a Junior, thats where he probably had his most NBA buzz...I think you would agree because you said he was expected to be late lottery. Every scout in the land had their eyes on him that year. Basically, everything there was to know about him was already out there. He decided to stay...now....scouts already knows what he can do from the previous year, they know he is not going to worse (remember he was projected as a late-lottery) so what makes his stock drop? He stays that one extra year and he DOESNT IMPROVE. He is still the same player from the previous year, but he is still not a great athlete, still not a great shooter, etc....

Does that mean Singler is a worse player as a senior than as a junior? No. I think he wouldve still been the same type of NBA player had he came out last year as he will be in the future...which we dont know yet. We know staying the extra year hurt his earnings. Did the extra year hurt him as a player? Did it hurt his ability to be a good NBA player? I say no to both....that one year showed the scouts that he pretty much has no upside because he didnt improve. I think there was enough information on Singler last year to determine if he was late-lottery or not, his stock was as high as it was going to get, I dont think he believed as a senior he would move into the lottery.

scoutguru
Registered User
Joined: 06/23/2008
Posts: 498
Points: 228
Offline
Man if Singler was a

Man if Singler was a projected lotto pick after his jr yr he woulda came out. I think all the nat'l c'ship buzz was more media hype than anything. I believe he was in the 25-35 range, and then he figured he wouldn't be any worse than that range the next yr, and decided to come back; at the same time competing 4 another title and possibly improving his game, being better as a more traditional 3. Turns out his #'s and efficiency was down a bit. But he's a guy where I think scouts know what he is. So yeah, if he came out last year he mighta snuck in da 1st round but idk if expectations on him would be diff from this yr. So essentially I think he wasn't overly hurt by staying another year. But like others have said, there's no uniform approach to it, each players situation is diff in terms of coming out or staying, and the effects on a player's development, longevity, and ability to reach their potential in the league...

iguapops420
iguapops420's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/05/2009
Posts: 2264
Points: 1607
Offline
No scout. He WAS expected

No scout. He WAS expected late lotto mid first. That's why it was such a shock that he ended up staying a fourth year.

@surve. I see what you're saying, but I'm trying to point out is that guys who are top players, usually don't fluctuate. They genuinely get better. If a guy maxes out his abilities by year 4 and absolutely gets no better(actually played worse senior year as he took a backseat), then he dopesn't need to go early. Had he left after his junior year, much more would have been expected from him. A team may have wanted more than he could give them and ultimately cause them to give up on him far too quick possibly causing him to not even make it in the NBA.

Here we are after his senior year where he doesn't progress or even stay where he was but REGRESSES and causes him to fall to the second. Now he can come in and show a team that he is in fact better than his second round status made him seem., Everything he offers now is just gravy IMO.

Just seems to me that the reason there arer so many failures in players staying in the league being high picks is because of all the percieved upside they have but never fullfill due to immaturity or lack of bball knowledge. I just personally think that if guys stay 3-4 years, they will usually be drafted where they should be and will be more prepared mentally and physically for the NBA game and may be able to give a team more impact earlier in their pro careers ultimately leadsing to them staying in the L.

RSS: Syndicate content