The myth of the hungry NBA inner-city product

Not traveling teams, but the "right camp" costs you a bundle. Though watching Matt Barkley stumble around, he should demand a refund from Steve Clarkson.

Regarding money for summer ball -- George Dohrmann's "Play They Hearts Out" has the AAU coach at the center of the book ruthlessly breaking down what he wants in his fourth-grade-age-level team, including some sucker sugar daddy willing to basically underwrite the team to pay for his basketball dreams for his son. And, by god, he got it. Last I saw, that son was playing at Concordia-Irvine, transferring from some other NAIA school. I'm sure that was high-six-figures well-spent by daddy.

 

Have any of Clarkson's pupils made it big in the NFL?

 

Bob, I think what you're pointing out actually works in reverse of this argument. The guys who pay aren't the guys who can play. There has always been sponsorship money for basketball, from shoe companies or from sources even shadier than that. Anyone with even a speck of NBA potential gets a free ride all the way through.

Also it seems to me that the author's point was not just in reference to current NBA players but those throughout the past few decades, i.e. before the travel circuit got into full swing.

I don't think his premise is difficult to follow at all. I've always thought of it like this. As a pure athlete and without working very hard:

--You can be a decent athlete and make it through about eighth grade.
--You can be a good athlete and make it through JV.
--You can be a very good/great athlete and be a high school varsity starter.
--You can be a truly rare athlete and make it through college.
--NOBODY can make it in the NBA without working.

Perhaps the Wilts and Iversons, depending on what you believe about how hard they worked. But basically everybody in the NBA is that truly rare athlete, and what defines success are work ethic and discipline and ability to get along and everything else a kid learns in a stable home and doesn't so much learn in an unstable one.

Obviously there are exceptions, but throughout NBA history I think you'd find that most of the black stars had a stable two-parent upbringing, if not a particularly well-heeled one.

 

Article is great for stereotyping.

 

How the hell does the article stereotype?

 

Dick, I personally know many guys who went on to play in the show both white and black. And this guy's research, while great, doesn't answer how and why they made it. The bottom line was that they had talent and was exposed to the game at a high level. Height didn't have anything to do with. Color didn't have anything to do with it. They had the skill set to play on the next level, someone noticed it, and they took advantage of a situation. However, I will say that it's an interesting story and nice to read.

 

Height has nothing to do with making it in the NBA?

 

Height didn't have anything to do with whether guys made it to the NBA or not?

 

Who's "we?" Rappers?

 

This is the logical extension of the Tyler Cowen article someone (I think you) posted a couple of weeks ago. As the ability to buy certain things (camps, elite coaching) increases, the ability to invest in the human capital of your child(ren) increases. So, too, will the gap between your child's output and the output of other children. Good article, with implications far beyond sports.

 

It implies they made it in no small part to the advantages that a two parent household provided.

 

No height didn't play a part. Skill set is what made the difference. Of course basketball is a tall man's and woman's game but the bottom line was skill.