1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jeremy Tyler goes to Israel, gets out of shape, hurts NBA chances

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Piotr Rasputin, Nov 9, 2009.

  1. Twoback

    Twoback Active Member

    Which shows how seriously you should take these things.
     
  2. Twoback

    Twoback Active Member

    Indeed.
    College basketball lost Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, Tracy McGrady, Dwight Howard and the great Kwame Brown over the course of a decade and still was drawing boffo ratings by 2005, the last year before the age limit, when Illinois-UNC blew the NBA Finals ratings out of the water.
    But the departure of Jeremy Tyler will ruin college basketball's appeal irreparably.
    Blue font, by the way.
     
  3. What he said.

    I'm one of those college basketball writers, and as has been said, when I worry about my future it's readership and costs-cutting bosses. It doesn't even occur to me to worry about college hoops drying up.

    College hoops will remain huge as long as the fandom is there. It's the old Jerry Seinfeld bit: They're rooting for laundry. The NBA is more closely tied to quality of play, therefore has more to worry about in terms of player development. (Hence Stern and co. instituting the age rule.) UCLA fans, on the other hand, are going to root as hard for their team whether it has Jeremy Tyler or Steven Tyler.
     
  4. Pancamo

    Pancamo Active Member

    I agree with you that college hoops will not suffer if kids go to Europe but if you Dick Vitale's comments on kids going to Europe is not self-serving, you are crazy.
     
  5. Twoback

    Twoback Active Member

    When I write that college basketball has long proven to be the best -- if not the only good -- means of fully developing prospects for the NBA, is that self-serving?
    Or is it just true?
    I've got reams of evidence to back me up.
     
  6. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    Two, I think we are the only two on this board that think that.

    Even if it is a wash and college adds nothing to the career and the overall game of a player, the free PR watching Rose for at least three years in college would add to the antcipation of him becoming a pro.

    I know the counter is that this is America, and Rose, for example, should be allowed to make money on his abilities as soon as he can.
     
  7. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    I will say that Simmons has raised an interesting point with Garnett that NBA players are like NFL running backs in that instead of so many carries in a player's career, they will have only so many NBA minutes in their legs.

    Playing a season in college might not wear on the legs like a pro career.

    Maybe he's wrong, but it is interesting.
     
  8. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    Well, of course it wouldn't, because at most in a college season you're playing about 40 games, only half of an NBA regular season. Plus, you're also not playing against the biggest and the strongest, every single night.

    That's why Tracy McGrady and Jermaine O'Neal broken-down bodies seem far older than you would expect for their age.
     
  9. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    But what it brings up is that you might not be making more money going pro early than if you spent more time as an amateur.

    If you have 12 years in the NBA so to speak, does it really matter when you take them?

    I know you have the injury factor in play, though, if you play college.
     
  10. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    No you don't.

    Because, in order for that "evidence" to mean anything relevant to the question of which method works better, you have to have sufficient counter evidence to compare it against.

    That doesn't exist yet. Jennings is the first ever to try it this way and, based upon his draft position and outstanding NBA start, it appears to have been quite successful. This route therefore appears to have a 100 % success rate based upon its 1 for 1 record thus far. The same can hardly be said for the college route. I can name you countless NBA busts from college basketball, you can't name any who've tried it this way.

    And the idea that anyone could even arguably suggest that college could be " if not the only good--means of fully developing prospects for the NBA" is utterly ludicrous in light of the success of Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Lebron James, Moses Malone, Dwight Howard, Dirk Nowitzki and the many other no-college ball guys who've utterly dominated the NBA in recent years.
     
  11. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    Stoney, he has shot better than 50% from the floor in only one game so far.

    Granted, he is doing well, but he does need that shooting percentage a little higher. That should come with time though.

    Shooting percentage is my favorite stat by the way.
     
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    1) Very few players who play college will ever get a whiff of the NBA. It's a league with relatively few roster spots.
    2) My guess is that one of the best predictors of future NBA potential isn't anything about whether a played college ball or played overseas. Look at the year-by-year rosters of the The McDonald's All American game. That is a serious predictor of who will make it to the NBA. Look at the two most recent games that would have given players four years of college eligibility and either have them selected for the NBA or not. In 2003, 24 players selected, 19 made it to the NBA. Where they went to school or if they transferred around seems to have had no impact on whether they made it. Two guys, LeBron James and James Lang didn't go to college or play overseas and both played in the NBA. In 2004, 24 players selected, 19 made it to the NBA. Seven of the players didn't attend college or play overseas. All seven of those players made it to the NBA.

    I'd submit that a good player based on talent and physical attributes is going to get a shot at the NBA regardless of whether he goes to college or goes overseas, if he is motivated enough to pursue it. And I'd also suggest that people already know who a handful of those players who have the ability are by the time they are 16 or 17 years old, based on the rosters of those McDonald's All American games going way back.

    You realize that college, or "how they developed" had little to do with anything when you look at the names on those rosters.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page