Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
One and dones like Jordan Spieth
RavennaDawg
Member Posts: 846
are what's ruing college golf.
Comments
-
Well I watch as much college basketball as I do college golf.
-
Didn't even know golf was still a college sport. Learned something new today.
-
Golf isn't a sport hth
-
It's ok for Jordan Spieth to go pro after one year because he's white.
-
Once again, The Field wins
-
IT'S NOT QUITE OVER YET FOR TIGER WOODS!MelloDawg said:Once again, The Field wins
-
The NBA needs March Madness to create player familiarity... or it dies.
Golf doesn't need the NCAA.
Hth. -
Kobe Bryant and LeBron James are only known because of their huge success in March Madness.sarktastic said:The NBA needs March Madness to create player familiarity... or it dies.
Golf doesn't need the NCAA.
Hth.
Everybody says so.
-
Flagged for forgetting Kevin GarnettTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Kobe Bryant and LeBron James are only known because of their huge success in March Madness.sarktastic said:The NBA needs March Madness to create player familiarity... or it dies.
Golf doesn't need the NCAA.
Hth.
Everybody says so. -
Flagged for shallow and pedantic reasoning. One and dones don't hurt college ball, college ball sucks for a myriad of reasons. There is no question that the lack of name brand familiarity hurts the NBA. As does the lack of skill coming in.
Anthony Davis won a title and is actually doing something as a pro. Quick - name 3 other Kentucky one and dones you follow in the NBA
Kyrie Irving is getting some pub now that he plays with LeBron. There will always be transcendent players, but the 80's and 90's showed the symmetric between the NCAA and the NBA was a golden age for both
it's fine with me if they don't have to go at all, but I'm not going to argue that it doesn't hurt the game. There is no minor league like baseball has. College was the minor league -
Who?greenblood said:
Flagged for forgetting Kevin GarnettTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Kobe Bryant and LeBron James are only known because of their huge success in March Madness.sarktastic said:The NBA needs March Madness to create player familiarity... or it dies.
Golf doesn't need the NCAA.
Hth.
Everybody says so. -
AAU has ruined the mindset of the players and the
pimpscoaches that teach them are a joke.
I play in this night league in SF and before the first game some aau team is finishing practice. The coaches scream at the players complete Bull shit while the parents harass the kids to shoot every time. It's misguided desperation for a scholarship and money if I've ever seen it. -
Flagged for bolded part.Doogles said:AAU has ruined the mindset of the players and the
pimpscoaches that teach them are a joke.
I play in this night league in SF and before the first game some aau team is finishing practice. The coaches scream at the players complete Bull shit while the parents harass the kids to shoot every time. It's misguided desperation for a scholarship and money if I've ever seen it.
-
One and dones may not devastate the overall quality of all 300 plus teams, but they do lessen the quality of the Pukes, UNCs, KYs. Kansases, UCLAs, Indianas etc. Some talking head pointed out that they have to simplify/dumb down their offenses, which contributes to a lack of scoring.
Not only that, but the average fan isn't going to identity with the guys who stay for a year or their teams. There's little star power. -
If the one and dones had to stay for three years (like football) it would improve the overall talent much deeper than just the top tier teams. Kentucky wouldn't sign seven kids a year to replace the seven that left; they couldn't. Good players might have to actually play for a coach that might actually give a shit.
-
There's no question that the one and done rule is bad for the quality of college basketball. I don't see why the NBA should care about that, though. The rule is very good for the NBA, and for the players as a whole. Kids games develop better in the NBA than they do in college. If you're good enough to go early you'd be a fool not to.d2d said:If the one and dones had to stay for three years (like football) it would improve the overall talent much deeper than just the top tier teams. Kentucky wouldn't sign seven kids a year to replace the seven that left; they couldn't. Good players might have to actually play for a coach that might actually give a shit.
I don't play in a night league in SF.
The issue with kids not developing fundamentals is an AAU and high school issue, not a one and done one. A kid with great talent but poor fundamentals is going to develop them much quicker in the NBA where there are no limits to how much coaching they can get and how many hours they can have supervised practices, plus there are no other responsibilities to steal your time and focus like having to find a tutor to write your papers.
I get why college hoops fans hate the one and done rule. Just be honest why you hate it. It's because you want to see great players play more college basketball. It's not because it somehow prevents them from developing their games. It doesn't do that at all. -
One and dones are the absolute exception in college basketball. There are almost 400 schools playing D-1 basketball. A dozen early entries do nothing in the big scheme of things.dnc said:
There's no question that the one and done rule is bad for the quality of college basketball. I don't see why the NBA should care about that, though. The rule is very good for the NBA, and for the players as a whole. Kids games develop better in the NBA than they do in college. If you're good enough to go early you'd be a fool not to.d2d said:If the one and dones had to stay for three years (like football) it would improve the overall talent much deeper than just the top tier teams. Kentucky wouldn't sign seven kids a year to replace the seven that left; they couldn't. Good players might have to actually play for a coach that might actually give a shit.
I don't play in a night league in SF.
The issue with kids not developing fundamentals is an AAU and high school issue, not a one and done one. A kid with great talent but poor fundamentals is going to develop them much quicker in the NBA where there are no limits to how much coaching they can get and how many hours they can have supervised practices, plus there are no other responsibilities to steal your time and focus like having to find a tutor to write your papers.
I get why college hoops fans hate the one and done rule. Just be honest why you hate it. It's because you want to see great players play more college basketball. It's not because it somehow prevents them from developing their games. It doesn't do that at all.
Shit coaching in AAU ball has a much greater impact on the regression of college ball. You want better college ball, quit allowing fourth grade travel teams and letting 7th graders jack threes from their hip. Teach fundamentals and team ball instead of showing the fifth graders the triangle offense. -
If you require college kids to stay three years, for instance, you're adding 40 or 50 top athletes into the college basketball pool each season. The college game would undeniably be stronger in that instance. Even if you allowed kids to go straight out of HS or play three years of college ball (basically the beisbol model) you're going to add a strong group of players to the college game. The main effect would be no more Baylor and VCU Cinderella stories because the quality of play in the major conferences would jump significantly.PurpleThrobber said:
One and dones are the absolute exception in college basketball. There are almost 400 schools playing D-1 basketball. A dozen early entries do nothing in the big scheme of things.dnc said:
There's no question that the one and done rule is bad for the quality of college basketball. I don't see why the NBA should care about that, though. The rule is very good for the NBA, and for the players as a whole. Kids games develop better in the NBA than they do in college. If you're good enough to go early you'd be a fool not to.d2d said:If the one and dones had to stay for three years (like football) it would improve the overall talent much deeper than just the top tier teams. Kentucky wouldn't sign seven kids a year to replace the seven that left; they couldn't. Good players might have to actually play for a coach that might actually give a shit.
I don't play in a night league in SF.
The issue with kids not developing fundamentals is an AAU and high school issue, not a one and done one. A kid with great talent but poor fundamentals is going to develop them much quicker in the NBA where there are no limits to how much coaching they can get and how many hours they can have supervised practices, plus there are no other responsibilities to steal your time and focus like having to find a tutor to write your papers.
I get why college hoops fans hate the one and done rule. Just be honest why you hate it. It's because you want to see great players play more college basketball. It's not because it somehow prevents them from developing their games. It doesn't do that at all.
Shit coaching in AAU ball has a much greater impact on the regression of college ball. You want better college ball, quit allowing fourth grade travel teams and letting 7th graders jack threes from their hip. Teach fundamentals and team ball instead of showing the fifth graders the triangle offense.
But we agree that AAU is the greatest scourge on the game. Wiff a bullet.
-
WTF'd because Texas and Washington have kept underperforming coaches for a long time.dnc said:
If you require college kids to stay three years, for instance, you're adding 40 or 50 top athletes into the college basketball pool each season. The college game would undeniably be stronger in that instance. Even if you allowed kids to go straight out of HS or play three years of college ball (basically the beisbol model) you're going to add a strong group of players to the college game. The main effect would be no more Baylor and VCU Cinderella stories because the quality of play in the major conferences would jump significantly.PurpleThrobber said:
One and dones are the absolute exception in college basketball. There are almost 400 schools playing D-1 basketball. A dozen early entries do nothing in the big scheme of things.dnc said:
There's no question that the one and done rule is bad for the quality of college basketball. I don't see why the NBA should care about that, though. The rule is very good for the NBA, and for the players as a whole. Kids games develop better in the NBA than they do in college. If you're good enough to go early you'd be a fool not to.d2d said:If the one and dones had to stay for three years (like football) it would improve the overall talent much deeper than just the top tier teams. Kentucky wouldn't sign seven kids a year to replace the seven that left; they couldn't. Good players might have to actually play for a coach that might actually give a shit.
I don't play in a night league in SF.
The issue with kids not developing fundamentals is an AAU and high school issue, not a one and done one. A kid with great talent but poor fundamentals is going to develop them much quicker in the NBA where there are no limits to how much coaching they can get and how many hours they can have supervised practices, plus there are no other responsibilities to steal your time and focus like having to find a tutor to write your papers.
I get why college hoops fans hate the one and done rule. Just be honest why you hate it. It's because you want to see great players play more college basketball. It's not because it somehow prevents them from developing their games. It doesn't do that at all.
Shit coaching in AAU ball has a much greater impact on the regression of college ball. You want better college ball, quit allowing fourth grade travel teams and letting 7th graders jack threes from their hip. Teach fundamentals and team ball instead of showing the fifth graders the triangle offense.
But we agree that AAU is the greatest scourge on the game. Wiff a bullet. -
The myth is that high school/college ball in the past did a better job of preparing players for the NBA. When you force a player to play in the minor leagues for a longer period than his talent warrants, he will be better equipped to learn new skills when he leaves. He just emerges as a player with poor coaching who happens to be more mature. Players weren't prepared in the old days.
I hate the one and done rule. Just let the best players play, like baseball, hockey, soccer, auto racing, tennis, golf and every other sport except NFL football. -
Disagree big time with this part because we've seen how many 18, 19, and 20 year old kids that are far from mature enough to manage the time, money, and responsibility that comes with being a NBA player at that age.dnc said:
A kid with great talent but poor fundamentals is going to develop them much quicker in the NBA where there are no limits to how much coaching they can get and how many hours they can have supervised practices, plus there are no other responsibilities to steal your time and focus like having to find a tutor to write your papers.d2d said:If the one and dones had to stay for three years (like football) it would improve the overall talent much deeper than just the top tier teams. Kentucky wouldn't sign seven kids a year to replace the seven that left; they couldn't. Good players might have to actually play for a coach that might actually give a shit.
I don't play in a night league in SF.
I do agree that the right player CAN develop quicker in the NBA than what he would at the college level.
However, I do think that there's value for a player in learning how to be the top player on his team, learn how to make others better, etc. at the college level as those skills will help in the professional game. -
It's America and a player should be able to go pro whenever they want. That said, the baseball model would be really good for college basketball.
-
@dnc, you actually disagree with this? Each case is different.Tequilla said:
Disagree big time with this part because we've seen how many 18, 19, and 20 year old kids that are far from mature enough to manage the time, money, and responsibility that comes with being a NBA player at that age.dnc said:
A kid with great talent but poor fundamentals is going to develop them much quicker in the NBA where there are no limits to how much coaching they can get and how many hours they can have supervised practices, plus there are no other responsibilities to steal your time and focus like having to find a tutor to write your papers.d2d said:If the one and dones had to stay for three years (like football) it would improve the overall talent much deeper than just the top tier teams. Kentucky wouldn't sign seven kids a year to replace the seven that left; they couldn't. Good players might have to actually play for a coach that might actually give a shit.
I don't play in a night league in SF.
I do agree that the right player CAN develop quicker in the NBA than what he would at the college level.
However, I do think that there's value for a player in learning how to be the top player on his team, learn how to make others better, etc. at the college level as those skills will help in the professional game. -
I disagree with him quoting my poast and saying "disagree big time with this part".RoadDawg55 said:
@dnc, you actually disagree with this? Each case is different.Tequilla said:
Disagree big time with this part because we've seen how many 18, 19, and 20 year old kids that are far from mature enough to manage the time, money, and responsibility that comes with being a NBA player at that age.dnc said:
A kid with great talent but poor fundamentals is going to develop them much quicker in the NBA where there are no limits to how much coaching they can get and how many hours they can have supervised practices, plus there are no other responsibilities to steal your time and focus like having to find a tutor to write your papers.d2d said:If the one and dones had to stay for three years (like football) it would improve the overall talent much deeper than just the top tier teams. Kentucky wouldn't sign seven kids a year to replace the seven that left; they couldn't. Good players might have to actually play for a coach that might actually give a shit.
I don't play in a night league in SF.
I do agree that the right player CAN develop quicker in the NBA than what he would at the college level.
However, I do think that there's value for a player in learning how to be the top player on his team, learn how to make others better, etc. at the college level as those skills will help in the professional game.
Yes, each player is different. Yes, college can be the best route for a kid. But generally speaking for a basketball player's development 82 games > 35 games, unlimited practice time > limited practice time, not having to worry about school > having to worry about school, etc.
-
If a guy does not have the mental or physical maturity to handle the NBA, his development will be retarded by playing in the NBA. Had 13 year old LeBron James been in the NBA, it would have been bad for his career.
The second a player has the mental maturity and physical skills to make a roster, his basketball development suffers every second he is not in the NBA. I remember after Dunleavy's rookie year when he said he developed more as a basketball player sitting on the Warriors' bench for a year than starring at Duke for 3. The skill level of the NBA is so far and away superior to any other bball league in the world, and as DNC said you will have unlimited practice time and coaching, and get to concentrate on your job. -
