The problem is... the rule is to protect the business, not to benefit the high school kids. NBA should be able to make any age/experience requirement they deem necessary for hiring new personnel (players). More years in college gives NBA teams a much better platform to better evaluate talent before sinking millions into a player based on AAU highlight tapes. Perfect example? Andrew and Aaron Harrison would have been top 5-10 picks out of high school. College spotlighted that they are very good players but no where near worthy of that kind of money/draft pick. One benefit of the One and Done rule is to get all the NBA scouts out of HS gyms and help them consolidate their efforts on the college game for evaluation. If anything the NBA will push the limit to 2 years post HS (they could care less if you go to D-League, NCAA, overseas, etc) to have those entering the draft more mature, physically able to contribute, and not as big of a liability as you can better see what you are getting in a player at 20 years old vs 18. And let's not pretend players leaving early for a professional career is "wasted" money by the college on scholarships. These people leaving early are earning the universities MILLIONS off of their presence on campus. Colleges benefit greatly from these stars being on campus, if even only for 1-2 years. The telling part of a program is the graduation rate among players who DON'T go pro.
I honestly don't think the colleges or the fans would miss them if they were not there. We wouldn't know any different and the quality of the game probably wouldn't suffer one bit, infact, it might improve.
Maybe so, but it's irrelevant as far as the rules go. It doesn't benefit the NBA owners at all to open it back up to HS players to go pro. They no longer have to gamble on every HS phenom due to the risk of missing out on the next great thing. Forcing everyone into a semi-pro or collegiate model allows to better evaluate their actual talent level and draft more wisely. They gain everything by waiting longer to allow them to enter draft and gain nothing by reverting to the old model. On the flip side, there is no way for the NCAA to enforce a rule either. You can't force someone to stay in school. We are still operating on the laughable premise that these are "students" athletes. Students drop out of school and leave early all the time. Nothing would keep a basketball player from leaving college after Freshman year even if NCAA had a 3 year rule in place. Only the NBA can change this rule, and they honestly could care less about the NCAA model. NCAA just have to adapt and work with what they are given. I do think the college game benefits (attracting fans wise) from seeing players like Anthony Davis, Derrick Rose, Kevin Durant, etc even if only for a year.
Ill just add this....man did anyone see that damn burst Allen possesses? Goodness man that kid is an athlete.
He's going to be the next great/hated Duke player along the Reddick lines. Kid is a great ball player for sure!
Duke shot 56 free throws in the two final four games they played. Michigan state, Ky, and Wisconsin shot 57 combined in the final four games. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mike and Mike brought up an interesting question this morning. In todays day of 1 and done or 2 and done players and the parity it causes, is there a point to be made that coaching has become even more important than ever with this trend? Dynasties now belong to coaches and programs not the players?
Do you guys think they really drew that many more fouls compared to Michigan State, Kentucky and Wisconsin?
I don't see how one and done's have brought any parity into the game what so ever. In fact quite the opposite. The most talented one and done's are all going to one of a very short list of exclusive programs. Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and maybe a couple of other fringe teams like Louisville, Uconn, Texas, Florida and Arizona. I guess the question is like the chicken and the egg. Is it the school, coach or is it the talent. The coach gets the talent, but the couldn't get that talent at 95% percent of the other schools. Those blue blood schools can hire pretty much what ever coach they want, so they have a huge built in advantage for getting the best and brightest coaches. The talent want's to play for those blue bloods because of the greater prestige and exposure. You only have to look at Tubby Smith winning a NC w. Kentucky to see that even an average to below average coach can win at these programs.
Well, when the officials allow the offensive player to bull into the defender and not call any charges, then yes they drew more fouls. The question should be, is the offensive player allowed to attack the defenders position on the court, or should the defender be allowed to be there? It's one thing to create contact as an offensive player, it's another to just run right into the chest of the defender trying to guard you. That shouldn't be allowed.
It gets worst if you look at a stat about points come of free throws to shots, lol Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At the 9 min mark Wisconsin was in the double bonus already, duke had fouls to give with less than 5 mins left in the game. Let's remember this all happen after the 16 min mark. So Wisconsin the team who fouls the least of any team in ncaa got 10 fouls in 7 mins? Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I'll let you judge the evidence.. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And here is the most damning evidence Duke really did get all the foul calls in the 2015 NCAA tournament - The Washington Post Anyone want to know what the other teams stat for this was in the Final Four?
If you're more aggressive and drive to the basket more than the other teams you will get more calls. In order to know if the stats make sense or not you would need to know the ratio of driving to the basket versus settling for jump shots.
There really is no way anyone can argue that Duke was not the "chosen" team for the tournament. At least not with a straight face. The officiating changed from night to day after Wisconsin took complete control of the game. It was painfully obvious to the impartial. Nearly everyone that I have spoken to about the game actually gives the win to Wisconsin. Little consolation for their efforts and talents. I think the Wisconsin program could have forced some interesting conversation by throwing in the towel and walking to the locker room after about the 10th foul called on them in the last few minutes. The writing was on the wall at that point.
Looking at the entire game...Duke was called more PF and attempted fewer free throws than WI If the refs are really pulling for WI why would they put Okafor in foul trouble?
