Kentucky builds palace for bball players

Donate To GopherHole
S

scher215

Active member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
6,609
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Wow ...

@MedcalfByESPN: Kentucky builds palace for players es.pn/QUoIh8
 

It was better when 18 year olds just went pro from high school...now we're left with this. I wouldn't send my kids to UK, would you?
 

This is basically the same story that came out a week or two ago (maybe someone different wrote it or retweeted it or something). Doesn't the media have anything better to spend its time on? I guess it's a slow time for college basketball writers.
 

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/17044/oklahoma-states-locker-rooms-um-wow[/URL]

Check out OK. State new locker room.
 

NateDawgUM said:
It was better when 18 year olds just went pro from high school...now we're left with this. I wouldn't send my kids to UK, would you?
Click to expand...

I agree this is spiraling out of control... I dislike how these players are treated in comparison to "regular" students. It is unfortunate that this is what "recruiting" has come to.
 


NateDawgUM said:
It was better when 18 year olds just went pro from high school
Click to expand...

Yup. The only league where it makes sense to restrict player entry by age is the NFL, because an underdeveloped 18-year-old would literally get killed on a crossing route over the middle when he gets drilled by Patrick Willis. The NBA is doing it because it delays the player's career by a year, thus eliminating a year of earning that they'll never get back. It also gives them a year of free scouting to reduce personnel mistakes. The NCAA thinks it's good because it forces better players into their system if only for a year, but in reality it makes the product worse because coaches are forced to do dirty/shady things to get players that don't really want to be there. The product would be better if it only contained players who actually wanted to be there and removed the impetus for most of the dirty/shady recruiting tactics. I don't really care whether the NBA loses a bunch of money by drafting poorly and spending a ton on poor players. They shouldn't get to be protected from themselves. They should do a better job and hire better personnel evaluators. Out here in the real world, we don't get to pass self-serving rules to mitigate the detriments of our own poor decision-making. Why should the NBA?
 

Has anyone watched the video of Cal showing off this place? I was less than impressed. Not a palace by any means. Sure, it is a dorm that is just their's, but it is pretty average. The rooms are small, the share a bathroom. That right there is no different than the expanded wings at T-Hall and Frontier. Places your regular students live. They have a room with pool and chairs? Whoopty do. Every dorm has those. About the only thing that other dorms dont have is a chef. But it sounds like he just makes the regular meals. I doubt he is there 24-7 to feed these guys whatever, whenever. It is basically just another big, compact dorm. Only this one is isolated from every other student on campus. Must be really fun. I would much rather be in a nice new dorm with other students. I bet the new dorms the U is building will be just as nice, but with a mix of all different kids. The social aspect of college should never be undervalued.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Yup. The only league where it makes sense to restrict player entry by age is the NFL, because an underdeveloped 18-year-old would literally get killed on a crossing route over the middle when he gets drilled by Patrick Willis. The NBA is doing it because it delays the player's career by a year, thus eliminating a year of earning that they'll never get back. It also gives them a year of free scouting to reduce personnel mistakes. The NCAA thinks it's good because it forces better players into their system if only for a year, but in reality it makes the product worse because coaches are forced to do dirty/shady things to get players that don't really want to be there. The product would be better if it only contained players who actually wanted to be there and removed the impetus for most of the dirty/shady recruiting tactics. I don't really care whether the NBA loses a bunch of money by drafting poorly and spending a ton on poor players. They shouldn't get to be protected from themselves. They should do a better job and hire better personnel evaluators. Out here in the real world, we don't get to pass self-serving rules to mitigate the detriments of our own poor decision-making. Why should the NBA?
Click to expand...

Have never agreed with you more. Well said.
 

DLguy said:
Has anyone watched the video of Cal showing off this place? I was less than impressed. Not a palace by any means. Sure, it is a dorm that is just their's, but it is pretty average. The rooms are small, the share a bathroom. That right there is no different than the expanded wings at T-Hall and Frontier. Places your regular students live. They have a room with pool and chairs? Whoopty do. Every dorm has those. About the only thing that other dorms dont have is a chef. But it sounds like he just makes the regular meals. I doubt he is there 24-7 to feed these guys whatever, whenever. It is basically just another big, compact dorm. Only this one is isolated from every other student on campus. Must be really fun. I would much rather be in a nice new dorm with other students. I bet the new dorms the U is building will be just as nice, but with a mix of all different kids. The social aspect of college should never be undervalued.
Click to expand...

While I largely agree with you, you say this as if the 'dirty, shady recruiting tactics' only began with the age restriction and only take place with potential 1 and done guys. AAU basketball more than anything has dirtied up the recruiting game and also made players carry themselves more like commodities. There are guys playing for MAC schools that traveled to most major cities in the country from 12-18 and flew around the country every weekend getting free shoes and clothes with little adult supervision. I was in Vegas a month or 2 back and stayed in a hotel right next to the convention center where there was a big AAU tournament going on. On the strip after midnight were dozens of groups of teenagers just strolling around by themselves (and yes it's pretty clear that a group of tall teenage boys wearing the same t-shirts and basketball shoes are AAU players). Now I didn't see any acting out but these kids are already being treated like pros (at least compared to what the average non athlete experiences at that age)
 



dpodoll68 said:
Yup. The only league where it makes sense to restrict player entry by age is the NFL, because an underdeveloped 18-year-old would literally get killed on a crossing route over the middle when he gets drilled by Patrick Willis. The NBA is doing it because it delays the player's career by a year, thus eliminating a year of earning that they'll never get back. It also gives them a year of free scouting to reduce personnel mistakes. The NCAA thinks it's good because it forces better players into their system if only for a year, but in reality it makes the product worse because coaches are forced to do dirty/shady things to get players that don't really want to be there. The product would be better if it only contained players who actually wanted to be there and removed the impetus for most of the dirty/shady recruiting tactics. I don't really care whether the NBA loses a bunch of money by drafting poorly and spending a ton on poor players. They shouldn't get to be protected from themselves. They should do a better job and hire better personnel evaluators. Out here in the real world, we don't get to pass self-serving rules to mitigate the detriments of our own poor decision-making. Why should the NBA?
Click to expand...

The NBA should do as MLB. If you want to, and have the ability, you may choose to enter NBA comming out of hs. If you decide to take the college route you can not enter the NBA for three years.

The 18 yr old has the right to enter NBA, the ones that go to college will have to be actual students, and the NBA doesn't have to spend as much money and guess work on 'potential'. It's a win, win, win.
 

station19 said:
The NBA should do as MLB. If you want to, and have the ability, you may choose to enter NBA comming out of hs. If you decide to take the college route you can not enter the NBA for three years.

The 18 yr old has the right to enter NBA, the ones that go to college will have to be actual students, and the NBA doesn't have to spend as much money and guess work on 'potential'. It's a win, win, win.
Click to expand...

There was a guy who used come here from UK land named "the truth". Every time there was a UK topic, he would jump in. I wonder where he is these days. I wonder how much he is enjoying Calamri and his admin. He seemed to hate Tubby but also seemed like an honest guy.

Go Gophers
 

station19 said:
The NBA should do as MLB. If you want to, and have the ability, you may choose to enter NBA comming out of hs. If you decide to take the college route you can not enter the NBA for three years.
Click to expand...

This is a fair compromise, and one I would like to see implemented. I never hear of anyone complaining re: baseball's entrance rules, and while there have been occasional half-assed challenges to the NFL's (Clarett), the NBA's are almost universally panned as terrible for the players, the league, and the NCAA. It seems almost no one (other than David Stern) likes them, so why are they allowed to go on this way? I even remember reading a short time back that Stern likes the one-year ban so much, he thinks it should be moved to two and is strongly considering going that way. Apparently, his philosophy is if something sucks a lot, let's double down and it will guarantee that thing to suck less.
 

dpodoll68 said:
This is a fair compromise, and one I would like to see implemented. I never hear of anyone complaining re: baseball's entrance rules, and while there have been occasional half-assed challenges to the NFL's (Clarett), the NBA's are almost universally panned as terrible for the players, the league, and the NCAA. It seems almost no one (other than David Stern) likes them, so why are they allowed to go on this way? I even remember reading a short time back that Stern likes the one-year ban so much, he thinks it should be moved to two and is strongly considering going that way. Apparently, his philosophy is if something sucks a lot, let's double down and it will guarantee that thing to suck less.
Click to expand...

As a fan I like the stay in college 3 years rule. I think it does make sense for all involved. I could see ayers having an issue with it, though. Take a guy who blows up after his second year and his stock has never been higher and he wants to go pro, but rules won't let him so he stays in school. That next season he tears his ACL game one and loses out on millions (either due to entering the draft coming off if a torn ACL or playing a 4th year and never really looking the same / being older). I can already see the articles being written about how the NCAA doesn't care about the players.

May just have better luck with a 2 year requirement. I personally like the idea overall though.
 



scher215 said:
As a fan I like the stay in college 3 years rule. I think it does make sense for all involved. I could see ayers having an issue with it, though. Take a guy who blows up after his second year and his stock has never been higher and he wants to go pro, but rules won't let him so he stays in school. That next season he tears his ACL game one and loses out on millions (either due to entering the draft coming off if a torn ACL or playing a 4th year and never really looking the same / being older). I can already see the articles being written about how the NCAA doesn't care about the players.

May just have better luck with a 2 year requirement. I personally like the idea overall though.
Click to expand...

No rule is ever perfect. The same injury could occur any year in college or even in hs.
 

I am growing to dislike the 1-year rule strongly because it allows Calipari to buy the best recruits every year. Things were much fairer with the old rule when Calipari could pay off/sign a guy like Amare Stoudemire and then not see him play college basketball because he frankly did not belong in college. Calipari's reputation as a coach would have been enhanced if guys like Stoudemire and Kendrick Perkins (both Calipari signees who skipped NCAA ball) were forced to go to college, but somehow it doesn't hurt his rep when those two big fish go on to outstanding careers without the benefit of his "expert tutelage." It's a joke that Calipari is viewed by recruits as some savant that has the magic touch to send guys to the pros when he's buying off some of the best players every year. Guys who are no-brainers for the NBA just don't belong in college these days. A 2-year rule would exacerbate the problem. The old rule was much better for competitive equity in college basketball. I wish more of the surefire NBA talents would just skip college and go pro in Europe or the NBDL just to stop this 1-year nonsense where guys like Anthony Davis who have no interest in a college degree and are semi-pro are playing college basketball.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom