Latest BIGSPORTSWRITER rant: SATs, racism and Derrick Rose

It worked well for Brandon Jennings. Jennings was a highly acclaimed high school player, averaging 32.7 points and 7.4 assists as a senior, and won all major player of the year awards in his senior year. After graduating from Oak Hill Academy, he decided to play professional basketball with the Italian club Lottomatica Roma instead of playing collegiately for the University of Arizona , leading to controversy and debate on the NBA's "prep-to-pro" policy adopted in 2006. After a year in Italy, Jennings declared for the 2009 NBA Draft and was selected 10th overall by the Bucks.

 

Brandon Jennings did that, and it seems to have worked out well for him.

But I don't know how many overseas clubs would be willing to invest much in a kid they know is only biding his time for one season until he can enter the NBA draft. These kids get their fat contracts based upon future worth, but how much future value does an 18 year old for only one season have? You're basically just paying him to learn the ropes and then some other team reaps the benefits when he moves on the next season.

I'd think for that to become a widespread viable option you'd need more players willing to commit to a long term contract, instead of just one season, and I doubt that's gonna happen with kids who've been dreaming of nothing but the NBA their whole lives.

 

"It worked well for Brandon Jennings," in the sense that he was miserable for a year riding the pine because he waa learning an entirely new system and language.

 

It worked because he learned the game, even though he sat the pine.

 

No, it worked because he ended up getting exactly what he wanted out of the deal. The ensuing year he was a top 10 lottery pick, had a very succesful rookie year, and has turned into a very successful pro. And he started out several hundred thousand dollars richer than his fellow draftmates who spent the prior season playing for free.

And, who knows, maybe that season spent dealing with a new system, a foreign language, and playing alongside adult professionals instead of being coddled as the campus BMOC, better prepared him for the NBA and helps explain why he instantly looked more NBA-ready than others in that draft when his rookie season began.

 

In general, draft stock would plummet for those guys, too. I'm interested to see how Josiah Turner turns out. The international game has less exposure, less of a chance for stardom and in most cases can negatively impact a player from the U.S. in the short term.

 

That Jennings thrived has more to say about him than going overseas. Jeremy Tyler was swallowed by the European development system. Those players learn in an entirely different style and the coaches don't have patience for Americans.

 

To the people pointing out Jennings: This is what's called "confirmation bias." That, basically, is "well, I think X way, and Y person made X happen, so it must be true" while disregarding all evidence to the contrary. Jennings is an exception, not a rule, and his talent was what put him over the top. Even when he was drafted, if you recall, most pundits/writers/GMs thought it was a bit of a risk.

 

It worked because the kid learned and made himself more valuable. Is it fool proof? Of course not. It may not be the road to riches for everyone, but it was for Jennings. I think that's the point. It worked for one guy and it may work for others.

 

I don't need the elementary school explanation of confirmation bias, and that's not what's happening here. And I don't necessarily "think X way", but merely pointed out that Jennings went that route and, based on the end result, it seems to have worked out well for him--in that one case. But I believe I also expressed the view that it was NOT a viable option for most of these guys, especially if they're not willing to commit more than a year to it.

 

Sheesh, you guys get riled up so easily. No need to get touchy. It wasn't a strike at anyone in particular. Just making the point that there's very little chance most other players would be successful here. Jennings was a top-10 pick because people remembered how he played in high school, not because he went to play in Europe. If anything, he dropped on the board because of that.

 

You have no evidentiary basis for leaping to this conclusion. There simply haven't been enough test cases for anyone to draw a reliable conclusion as to how well it works. Worked out pretty damn well for Jennings, but not so well for Tyler. That's not enough to conclude anything. Are there any other relevant examples I'm unaware of?