One and dones like Jordan Spieth

[RavennaDawg]

The myth is that high school/college ball in the past did a better job of preparing players for the NBA. When you force a player to play in the minor leagues for a longer period than his talent warrants, he will be better equipped to learn new skills when he leaves. He just emerges as a player with poor coaching who happens to be more mature. Players weren't prepared in the old days.

I hate the one and done rule. Just let the best players play, like baseball, hockey, soccer, auto racing, tennis, golf and every other sport except NFL football.

 

[Tequilla]

If the one and dones had to stay for three years (like football) it would improve the overall talent much deeper than just the top tier teams. Kentucky wouldn't sign seven kids a year to replace the seven that left; they couldn't. Good players might have to actually play for a coach that might actually give a shit.

I don't play in a night league in SF.

A kid with great talent but poor fundamentals is going to develop them much quicker in the NBA where there are no limits to how much coaching they can get and how many hours they can have supervised practices, plus there are no other responsibilities to steal your time and focus like having to find a tutor to write your papers.

Disagree big time with this part because we've seen how many 18, 19, and 20 year old kids that are far from mature enough to manage the time, money, and responsibility that comes with being a NBA player at that age.

I do agree that the right player CAN develop quicker in the NBA than what he would at the college level.

However, I do think that there's value for a player in learning how to be the top player on his team, learn how to make others better, etc. at the college level as those skills will help in the professional game.

 

[RoadDawg55]

It's America and a player should be able to go pro whenever they want. That said, the baseball model would be really good for college basketball.

 

[RoadDawg55]

If the one and dones had to stay for three years (like football) it would improve the overall talent much deeper than just the top tier teams. Kentucky wouldn't sign seven kids a year to replace the seven that left; they couldn't. Good players might have to actually play for a coach that might actually give a shit.

I don't play in a night league in SF.

A kid with great talent but poor fundamentals is going to develop them much quicker in the NBA where there are no limits to how much coaching they can get and how many hours they can have supervised practices, plus there are no other responsibilities to steal your time and focus like having to find a tutor to write your papers.

Disagree big time with this part because we've seen how many 18, 19, and 20 year old kids that are far from mature enough to manage the time, money, and responsibility that comes with being a NBA player at that age.

I do agree that the right player CAN develop quicker in the NBA than what he would at the college level.

However, I do think that there's value for a player in learning how to be the top player on his team, learn how to make others better, etc. at the college level as those skills will help in the professional game.

@dnc, you actually disagree with this? Each case is different.

 

[dnc]

If the one and dones had to stay for three years (like football) it would improve the overall talent much deeper than just the top tier teams. Kentucky wouldn't sign seven kids a year to replace the seven that left; they couldn't. Good players might have to actually play for a coach that might actually give a shit.

I don't play in a night league in SF.

A kid with great talent but poor fundamentals is going to develop them much quicker in the NBA where there are no limits to how much coaching they can get and how many hours they can have supervised practices, plus there are no other responsibilities to steal your time and focus like having to find a tutor to write your papers.

Disagree big time with this part because we've seen how many 18, 19, and 20 year old kids that are far from mature enough to manage the time, money, and responsibility that comes with being a NBA player at that age.

I do agree that the right player CAN develop quicker in the NBA than what he would at the college level.

However, I do think that there's value for a player in learning how to be the top player on his team, learn how to make others better, etc. at the college level as those skills will help in the professional game.

@dnc, you actually disagree with this? Each case is different.

I disagree with him quoting my poast and saying "disagree big time with this part".

Yes, each player is different. Yes, college can be the best route for a kid. But generally speaking for a basketball player's development 82 games > 35 games, unlimited practice time > limited practice time, not having to worry about school > having to worry about school, etc.

 

[RavennaDawg]

If a guy does not have the mental or physical maturity to handle the NBA, his development will be retarded by playing in the NBA. Had 13 year old LeBron James been in the NBA, it would have been bad for his career.

The second a player has the mental maturity and physical skills to make a roster, his basketball development suffers every second he is not in the NBA. I remember after Dunleavy's rookie year when he said he developed more as a basketball player sitting on the Warriors' bench for a year than starring at Duke for 3. The skill level of the NBA is so far and away superior to any other bball league in the world, and as DNC said you will have unlimited practice time and coaching, and get to concentrate on your job.

 

[d2d]