What about the tournament makes draft stock rise?
What is it about the NCAA tournament that makes the draft stock of lesser players rise? Like why is it that a whole seasons play and all the numbers they get not some to matter around tournament time. There are some players every now and then who play well on the big stage and some who don't. Now I understand that in smaller conferences its good to see the small schools beat the big schools but when it's tournament time sometimes you only get to play 1 game. And if the game is a dud then your draft stock plummets right? Any opinions?
I think the tournament is overrated when it comes to draft stock. I think by the time the combine comes around the tournament buzz has worn off. Now in some cases like Kemba Walker, he put that team on his back and showed it didn't matter who he went up agaist he was not going to be stopped and lead a team to a national title which showed some grit and heart which is something that can't be measured at the combine. Now if Carmelo had gone out first round in 2003 would he have still gone before Wade and Bosh? I believe so. GM's want to see how players play under the brightest of lights against the stiffest of competition, but a scouts job is year round and the tournament is only a piece to the puzzel.
Agree with Chilbert. Its just a national stage and a bigger setup for everyone to watch players. But if you look at the history this theory, it usually doesn't come through. I remember when UNC won it in 09, and people thought if Ed Davis came out he would have went like top 4. That would have been a mistake for whatever team did that. You really have to look at their body of work, and more importantly, look at what skills will translate easiest to the next level.