If LeBron had went to college...

[LosBulls]

Okay so let's start this thread where you add something to "If LeBron had went to college..."

Now, I'm not a college fan nor do I care that much if a player goes to college or not, This is just a "What If" thread for you dickheads out there that like to talk shit.

I'll start it off:

If LeBron had went to college...He would of been drafted by the Milwaukee Bucks and the Cavs would of landed Darko Milicic or Carmelo Anthony.
Atlanta would of drafted Andrew Bogut or one of CP3/Deron instead of Marvin Williams.

LeBron would still play with Mo Williams in Milwaukee :roll: :roll:

LeBron would of had a better knowledge for the game and accompanied by Mo Williams and Michael Redd he would of led that 1-2-3 Punch to the Second Round.


Okay, If LeBron had went to college...

[Real Men Wear Green]

The idea that NCAA is better for learning to play the game has no basis in reality. KG, Kobe, and James are amongst the highest-IQ players in the game. Meanwhile what did Javale McGee and Deandre Jordan learn dicking around in college for a year or two? Coaching is coaching regardless of the level.

[LosBulls]

The idea that NCAA is better for learning to play the game has no basis in reality. KG, Kobe, and James are amongst the highest-IQ players in the game. Meanwhile what did Javale McGee and Deandre Jordan learn dicking around in college for a year or two? Coaching is coaching regardless of the level.
"Now, I'm not a college fan nor do I care that much if a player goes to college or not, This is just a "What If" thread for you dickheads out there that like to talk shit. "

Back on topic or GTFO, please.

[Real Men Wear Green]

"Now, I'm not a college fan nor do I care that much if a player goes to college or not, This is just a "What If" thread for you dickheads out there that like to talk shit. "

Back on topic or GTFO, please.

LeBron would of had a better knowledge for the game:confusedshrug:

[Owl]

If LeBron had went to college he would have landed on a better team, that didn't allow Carlos Boozer to leave, fail to acquire young talent on picks, choose Larry Hughes as the big 2nd option who was both a perfect complement to LeBron and a genuine superstar, or select Luke Jackson (not to be confused with Lucius "Luke" Jackson, an actually good NBA player) in the lottery. Of course this is all conjecture but the Cavs did an very poor job of surrounding an elite player with good complementary players, especially not ones that would peak with him (as OKC has done).

Also all that years picks and thus the following years records, trades, drafts and the outcomes and what we now consider history would have been different so OPs prediction would be false, though if things were otherwise the same a 20 year old LeBron with a couple of good shooters in the East at that time would I suspect do better than the second round.

[Sarcastic]

Well for one, he would probably know that it's "had gone" or simply "went", and not "had went".

[Meticode]

If LeBron had went to college he would've learned to have a better PR team.

If Kobe had went to college he would've learned how to play team basketball.

If Garnett had went to college he would've won a ring sooner in his career than being picked by Minnesota.

If McGee had gotten drafted out of high school he would've be more f*cking stupid than he is now. :oldlol:

[jbryan1984]

If LeBron had went to college he would have landed on a better team, that didn't allow Carlos Boozer to leave, fail to acquire young talent on picks, choose Larry Hughes as the big 2nd option who was both a perfect complement to LeBron and a genuine superstar, or select Luke Jackson (not to be confused with Lucius "Luke" Jackson, an actually good NBA player) in the lottery. Of course this is all conjecture but the Cavs did an very poor job of surrounding an elite player with good complementary players, especially not ones that would peak with him (as OKC has done).

Also all that years picks and thus the following years records, trades, drafts and the outcomes and what we now consider history would have been different so OPs prediction would be false, though if things were otherwise the same a 20 year old LeBron with a couple of good shooters in the East at that time would I suspect do better than the second round.


:roll:

[I<3NBA]

Now, I'm not a college fan...
obviously you're not, else you would HAVE known it is WOULD HAVE and not WOULD OF, and simply WENT instead of HAD WENT.

[6JamesIsKing]

This thread makes no sense


OP = ******

[SAKOTXA]

No 4th quarters in college. :confusedshrug:

Wins NT every year.

Just messing with you guys

[wang4three]

The idea that NCAA is better for learning to play the game has no basis in reality. KG, Kobe, and James are amongst the highest-IQ players in the game. Meanwhile what did Javale McGee and Deandre Jordan learn dicking around in college for a year or two? Coaching is coaching regardless of the level.

No basis? Are you sure about that? For every Javale McGee or Deandre Jordan, there are people who became better in college for their claim to fame. Deron Williams, Russell Westbrook, Joe Johnson, Andrew Bogut, Ryan Anderson were not ready to be in the NBA post high school. They got better in college and made their name there. You think they'd be at the same success level if they went straight to the pros out of high school? Probably not.

There are bad eggs, sure, but it's egregious to think that learning to play in the NCAA does not put players (if not the majoirty) in a better position to learn their craft and prepare them for the NBA. Certain players don't need it, sure. But a lot of them do.

[wang4three]

Okay so let's start this thread where you add something to "If LeBron had went to college..."

Now, I'm not a college fan nor do I care that much if a player goes to college or not, This is just a "What If" thread for you dickheads out there that like to talk shit.

I'll start it off:

If LeBron had went to college...He would of been drafted by the Milwaukee Bucks and the Cavs would of landed Darko Milicic or Carmelo Anthony.
Atlanta would of drafted Andrew Bogut or one of CP3/Deron instead of Marvin Williams.

LeBron would still play with Mo Williams in Milwaukee :roll: :roll:

LeBron would of had a better knowledge for the game and accompanied by Mo Williams and Michael Redd he would of led that 1-2-3 Punch to the Second Round.


Okay, If LeBron had went to college...


You assume that if LeBron went into college, there would have been no impact to the NBA for the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 season. You assume that every teams' win-losses total stays static, essentially marking that LeBron was irrelevant to the NBA his first two seasons.

If LeBron went to college, everything changes. It's too hard to project what would've happened.

[inclinerator]

if he went to college he would be way better

[Haymaker]

No 4th quarters in college. :confusedshrug:

Wins NT every year.

Just messing with you guys true

[jstern]

Certain players doesn't make a difference if they went to college. I think someone like Bynum could have benefit more not being rich for a year or two and having to worry about his life a little more. Have so more legit worries, even though his future would have still been very bright compare to the average person.

[tmacattack33]

I don't see a big difference...unless you are saying he would have went to college for four years.

He likely would have been a one and done and in that case it hardly even matters.

[NBA4EVER]

http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/8360095/640/8360095.jpg

[AMISTILLILL]

He would have been drafted by somebody else... and that's it. He would have still been catered to and pampered like always, even during his time in college. He'd still have the ego and he'd still rely primarily on ISO ball and athleticism to win.

A couple years in college wouldn't have changed this guy. He'd been heralded as a basketball god before he was even old enough to drive. You don't shake off that kind of thing very easily, and especially not when you eat it up as much as LeBron does.

[Real Men Wear Green]

No basis? Are you sure about that? For every Javale McGee or Deandre Jordan, there are people who became better in college for their claim to fame. Deron Williams, Russell Westbrook, Joe Johnson, Andrew Bogut, Ryan Anderson were not ready to be in the NBA post high school. They got better in college and made their name there. You think they'd be at the same success level if they went straight to the pros out of high school? Probably not.

There are bad eggs, sure, but it's egregious to think that learning to play in the NCAA does not put players (if not the majoirty) in a better position to learn their craft and prepare them for the NBA. Certain players don't need it, sure. But a lot of them do.
Whether or not the player could make a roster is a different issue. I'm just talking about how good a job the coaches would do of developing the talent.

There's no evidence supporting the idea that NCAA coaches generally do a better job of teaching the game. Why didn't Smith and Guthridge at UNC work on Jamison's perimeter game? Why did Tubby Smith not focus on Rondo's jumper while sticking him at two guard? And take a look at the most offensively skilled bigs in the game: Duncan, KG, Big Al. 2 out of 3 didn't go to college. The league is in fact full of 7-footers only capable of dunking.

Why?

Because a college coach has the following priorities:
#1: Win (In many cases the only real priority)
#2: Graduate players (a distant #2)
#3: Player development.

When a coach gets an NBA talent he's not counting on him to be around for 4 years and by NCAA rule has a limit to the amount of time he can work with him anyway. Cal is just trying to get all he can out of Derrick Rose for the year he plays, he's not going to rebuild his jumper or teach him how to effectively play off the ball, he's going to have his monster athlete attack the basket all the way to a Final Four and then wish him luck in Chicago. When's the last time we saw the NCAA transform a player into someone he wasn't already before/wasn't bound to become? You mentioning Westbrook is actually an example that proves my point: He was a shooting guard in UCLA and came into the NBA knowing little about how to get his teammates involved. Still a work in progress. And Joe Johnson, whatever he learned in school looked nothing like a future All-Star when he first came to Boston. That development took place in the NBA.

Bottom line is, there's nothing sacred about NCAA coaching, nothing that goes on there that can't be taught (and often taught better) at the pro level by coaches that have no restriction about how long they can work with a guy or have to worry that the kid is keeping up his GPA.

[Sarcastic]

I think college would have stunted Lebron's development. It would have limited the amount of practice time he had at 18 years old.

[imdaman99]

I think college would have stunted Lebron's development. It would have limited the amount of practice time he had at 18 years old.
This.

Believe it or not, college stunted the hell outa this guy named Felipe Lopez's growth. Dude was hyped to be a god out of HS. And he made the mistake of going to St. Johns. After his initially impressive freshman year, his stock dropped rapidly and he went from guaranteed top 5 pick to scrub in the NBA.

[Bruinzzz]

He wouldn't be any better, nor would he be worse. He'd be on a different team, may have won a championship, but that's all speculation. The only thing different would be his team.

[pegasus]

His state farm commercial would have made some sense, as opposed to no sense. That's about it.

[sixer6ad]

he could have won a national title at Akron University. Of course, he would have gone to The Ohio State University, but how sweet would it have been had he stayed home and gone to Akron? Let's say he said, "Okay Zips...as payback for playing many of my HS games in your arena, I'm giving you one year. Let's see what we can do." The JAR would have been packed, they would have won the MAC, and Akron may have been a destination for some other high flyers. One of the things that would have never happened that I wish could have.

[Real Men Wear Green]

he could have won a national title at Akron University. Of course, he would have gone to The Ohio State University, but how sweet would it have been had he stayed home and gone to Akron? Let's say he said, "Okay Zips...as payback for playing many of my HS games in your arena, I'm giving you one year. Let's see what we can do." The JAR would have been packed, they would have won the MAC, and Akron may have been a destination for some other high flyers. One of the things that would have never happened that I wish could have.
Akron Zips made money holding his games. James didn't, They owe him.

[sixer6ad]

Akron Zips made money holding his games. James didn't, They owe him.

The thought was relationship-based, not money-based. The Zips and James are still connected. It was just a simple thought.

[Real Men Wear Green]

The thought was relationship-based, not money-based. The Zips and James are still connected. It was just a simple thought.
True, I'm being overly-argumentative. I find our amateur athletics rules too stupid, sorry.

[d.bball.guy]

http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/8360095/640/8360095.jpg
:bowdown:

[Sarcastic]

The thought was relationship-based, not money-based. The Zips and James are still connected. It was just a simple thought.

No it wasn't. They knew he could sell out bigger arenas, and they were happy to oblige.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

No 4th quarters in college. :confusedshrug:

Wins NT every year.

Just messing with you guys
Yeah, LeBron would've dominated the college metagame.

[wang4three]

Whether or not the player could make a roster is a different issue. I'm just talking about how good a job the coaches would do of developing the talent. There's no evidence supporting the idea that NCAA coaches generally do a better job of teaching the game. Why didn't Smith and Guthridge at UNC work on Jamison's perimeter game? Why did Tubby Smith not focus on Rondo's jumper while sticking him at two guard? And take a look at the most offensively skilled bigs in the game: Duncan, KG, Big Al. 2 out of 3 didn't go to college. The league is in fact full of 7-footers only capable of dunking.

Why don't expand that list? What about Zbo, LaMarcus Aldridge, David Lee, Blake Griffin? Each of those guys spent more than 1 year in college. You can't just selectively pick who you want to fit your case.



Why?

Because a college coach has the following priorities:
#1: Win (In many cases the only real priority)
#2: Graduate players (a distant #2)
#3: Player development.


I would say graduation falls below player development, especially at the best basketball power houses. Given that, how are the priorities different for the pro? You're telling me that player development is above winning in the pros? It matters so much more in the pros than in college.



When a coach gets an NBA talent he's not counting on him to be around for 4 years and by NCAA rule has a limit to the amount of time he can work with him anyway. Cal is just trying to get all he can out of Derrick Rose for the year he plays, he's not going to rebuild his jumper or teach him how to effectively play off the ball, he's going to have his monster athlete attack the basket all the way to a Final Four and then wish him luck in Chicago. When's the last time we saw the NCAA transform a player into someone he wasn't already before/wasn't bound to become? You mentioning Westbrook is actually an example that proves my point: He was a shooting guard in UCLA and came into the NBA knowing little about how to get his teammates involved. Still a work in progress. And Joe Johnson, whatever he learned in school looked nothing like a future All-Star when he first came to Boston. That development took place in the NBA.

The argument is that the environment is better to help the players grow. They're not ready for high level of competition of the NBA and need more time to develop mentally and physically--which NCAA provides. Especially on the competition level. If your argument holds, then guys like Ndudi Ebi, Jonathan Bender, Darius Miles, Kwame Brown shou'dve been better players than they are today. The reason a counter argument doesn't really exist is because you can't go back to college if you fail out of the NBA. However, if Gerald Green continues to look like he did for the Nets, then his development in a lesser competitive league would've really helped prepare him for the NBA.



Bottom line is, there's nothing sacred about NCAA coaching, nothing that goes on there that can't be taught (and often taught better) at the pro level by coaches that have no restriction about how long they can work with a guy or have to worry that the kid is keeping up his GPA.


That may be true for certain players, but certainly not all. This argument can be any. We could say education in school shouldn't be held sacred. Certain people could learn how to be a doctor and a lawyer without going to school and be better than most of the doctors and lawyers out there. But it doesn't hold true for everyone. That's the truth.

Like I said, are you sure there is "NO BASIS"?

[lilgodfather1]

Interesting thought. The Cavs draft Darko, Piston's draft Melo, etc. It changes the landscape of the NBA, and chances are Darko becomes a better player than he did by being stunted in Detroit (he would have had starters miuntes on Cavs), Wade likely doesn't explode like he did under Riley in Miami I mean seriously Raptors, Bosh maybe goes on to be a tough big man under Karl, the Heat don't win a title with Kaman, etc.

The entire NBA changes, not just LeBron. Maybe the Cavs draft Darko, he goes on to be a 15/10 player in his rookie year, but the Cavs only win 20 games and get the #1 again and draft James who makes Darko a superstar C. Or maybe the Magic get the #1, and Cavs get the #2 and Cleveland has a big man tandem of Howard and Millicic both all star big men. LeBron staying in college changes two drafts at least, likely multiple drafts as the Nuggets likely don't make the playoffs with Bosh like thy did with Melo.

It is an interesting thought tbh, but there is an infinate amount of possibilities that exist to know what would have happened.

As for LeBron's game maybe the coach makes him post up more, or makes him defend. Maybe the coach helps him with his jumpshot, maybe all of those things happen? If all of those things happen then LeBron is a 19 year old with an all NBA defensive game, the post up game of a PF, and the jumpshot of a SG, with the athletecism of a mythical creature. Hell how about this scenario. Wade gets drafted by Toronto in 2003, and in 2004 they get the #1 pick and select LeBron James. Miami Heat North, except better because they would have no expectations, and multiple years to grow together. It is all possible, there are so many possibilities it is impossible to guess.

[Sarcastic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_high_school_draftees

The rate of success of high school players that went straight to the NBA is actually very high. There have been tons and tons of busts that went to college and then flamed out in the NBA. There is zero proof that college ever helped any player develop beyond what he was capable of.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Why don't expand that list? What about Zbo, LaMarcus Aldridge, David Lee, Blake Griffin? Each of those guys spent more than 1 year in college. You can't just selectively pick who you want to fit your case. As Sarcastic pointed out the HSers have done well in the NBA. And even the guys you listed are funny. 99% of Blake Griffin's game is being athletic and having a strong desire to dunk. Zach Randolph was in fact one and done. Aldrdge could have gone pro after HS but chose not to. I highly doubt his two years of college drastically altered the player he was going to be.


I would say graduation falls below player development, especially at the best basketball power houses. Given that, how are the priorities different for the pro? You're telling me that player development is above winning in the pros? It matters so much more in the pros than in college.
Players that don't develop in the NBA don't last in the NBA. Players are often given or just pay for out of their own pockets coaches that work with them on their game. There is no rule restricting coach access so they get coached more. And an NCAA coach is often forced to choose between working on the overall team and making one player better at one thing that will make him a better pro. Guess wht that coach is going to do? Cal has no reason to make Rose learn to be a shooter because he knows Rose won't be there long enough for his team to benefit from it.



The argument is that the environment is better to help the players grow. They're not ready for high level of competition of the NBA and need more time to develop mentally and physically--which NCAA provides. Especially on the competition level. If your argument holds, then guys like Ndudi Ebi, Jonathan Bender, Darius Miles, Kwame Brown shou'dve been better players than they are today. The reason a counter argument doesn't really exist is because you can't go back to college if you fail out of the NBA. However, if Gerald Green continues to look like he did for the Nets, then his development in a lesser competitive league would've really helped prepare him for the NBA. Yeah, here have been guys that failed out of high school, but do you want to analyze the failure rates of guys that went to school? The success rate of the guys that skipped college is far higher. Of course that's because they're more talented, but that fits because talent and drive are what dictates whether or not a player is going to make it. But again, look at Sarcastic's link.


That may be true for certain players, but certainly not all. This argument can be any. We could say education in school shouldn't be held sacred. Certain people could learn how to be a doctor and a lawyer without going to school and be better than most of the doctors and lawyers out there. But it doesn't hold true for everyone. That's the truth. A doctor needs a detailed knowledge of biochemistry, anatomy, nutrition, etc., etc...a basketball player needs to understand the pick and roll. And no one's going to die if he doesn't get defensive rotation for a few years. Your comparison is awful.


Like I said, are you sure there is "NO BASIS"?
Yes. It's a myth perpetuated by people that have interest in forcing talented young players to attend a semester (not even a whole year) of school with the strange notion that getting paid under the table by athletic boosters while attempting to care about your undeclared major is somehow making you better at basketball.

[LBJMVP]

If LeBron had went to college he would have landed on a better team, that didn't allow Carlos Boozer to leave, fail to acquire young talent on picks, choose Larry Hughes as the big 2nd option who was both a perfect complement to LeBron and a genuine superstar, or select Luke Jackson (not to be confused with Lucius "Luke" Jackson, an actually good NBA player) in the lottery. Of course this is all conjecture but the Cavs did an very poor job of surrounding an elite player with good complementary players, especially not ones that would peak with him (as OKC has done).

Also all that years picks and thus the following years records, trades, drafts and the outcomes and what we now consider history would have been different so OPs prediction would be false, though if things were otherwise the same a 20 year old LeBron with a couple of good shooters in the East at that time would I suspect do better than the second round.


wasn't clevelands fault.
we were gonna give boozer a bigger contract and right when we released him he went to another team. one of the most unloyal things i've ever heard of.

[wang4three]

As Sarcastic pointed out the HSers have done well in the NBA. And even the guys you listed are funny. 99% of Blake Griffin's game is being athletic and having a strong desire to dunk. Zach Randolph was in fact one and done. Aldrdge could have gone pro after HS but chose not to. I highly doubt his two years of college drastically altered the player he was going to be.

But he didn't and you have no proof to prove otherwise that going to college didn't improve his game. It's just your opinion.



Yeah, here have been guys that failed out of high school, but do you want to analyze the failure rates of guys that went to school? The success rate of the guys that skipped college is far higher. Of course that's because they're more talented, but that fits because talent and drive are what dictates whether or not a player is going to make it. But again, look at Sarcastic's link.

I never said that all kids should go to college. Certain kids don't need it, but a lot of kids do. People like Derrick Rose, LeBron, Amare, or whomever don't need college, but there are clear and cut cases where going to an environment where playing against lesser competition and slowly building your skill set and talent is more beneficial than going to college.

Rates are irrelevant here. Every year thousands of players graduate from college while you have a sample size of probably not even 50. Ofcourse a rate over thousands versus 50 it's going to be different. You have LeBron, Dwight, Kobe, KG, T-Mac who are clear cases of people who didn't need to go to college represent 10-13% of your data and that's just 5 people. There's no comparison here.

It's like looking at the list for the best places to have neurosurgery. If you look at the rates of success, it's lower than the industry average. Is that misleading? Should I go to the one with 60% success with just 10 surgeries or to the place with 15% success with 1000s of surgeries. You just can't look at the rate and assume that there's a tell all there.



A doctor needs a detailed knowledge of biochemistry, anatomy, nutrition, etc., etc...a basketball player needs to understand the pick and roll. And no one's going to die if he doesn't get defensive rotation for a few years. Your comparison is awful.

No it's not. Not one bit. You said "there's nothing that goes on that can't be taught." You're telling me a smart person cannot learn biochemistry, anatomy, nutrition without the help of school? You comparing an intellectual subject to a physical subject is an awful comparison. However, if you think a talented basketball player like Kevin Garnett can learn how to score in the post, how come a guy like Frank Abagnale pass the bar exam without going to law school? How can a guy like Richard Branson who dropped out of school at 16 become one of the most successful people in the world?

Like I said, for some people school makes no sense. So yes, nothing is really sacred about school. However, not everyone are that talented and special. Most people need it. To deny that, is just a fallacy and just plain retarded.

Deron Williams wouldn't have been as great as he is today if he didn't go to school and worked hard and got better every year. He was overweight, slow, and dribbled too high. No team would've drafted him and invested the proper player development time like Illinois did. Same goes guys like Paul Millsap, Ryan Anderson, Joakim Noah, or Al Horford. Those guys needed the years in college. Sure their development skyrocked once they got into the NBA, but that's what happens when you do anything full-time. However, if you think that if they went to the NBA t 17, 18 years old and would be as good, or better than they are today, you're most likely wrong. No team would've found it a worthwhile investment to allow them to develop 2-3 years to see their production.


Yes. It's a myth perpetuated by people that have interest in forcing talented young players to attend a semester (not even a whole year) of school with the strange notion that getting paid under the table by athletic boosters while attempting to care about your undeclared major is somehow making you better at basketball.


It's not a myth. You're looking purely at people who obviously don't need college to succeed. This more of a case of self-selection. Everyday people succeed without the use of school, whether it be in basketball, business, art, or whatever. You can be a LeBron James, Antonio Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs without having spent one day at school. But the truth is, not everyone can be those guys. The truth is that most people need school, they need that environment that's detached from the working world so they can make mistakes and get better at their own pace, before they're measured on their return on investment.

[Sarcastic]

There is zero proof that college athletics helps players in hockey and baseball. Why would you think it helps in basketball? Both those sports allow players to turn pro at 18, and both have success and failure of HS players that do so, just as basketball does.

The only reason that the NFL requires players to go to college is due to the extreme violence of the sport. But it actually turns out that sometimes athletes' development gets hurt by playing college football unless they play in a pro style system. Sometimes they learn bad tendencies in college systems that don't translate well at the pro level. Those are actually clear examples of players being developed in the wrong way from the NCAA game.

I think the same thing happens sometimes in basketball as well. The players spend a few years learning to shoot from 19'9", when the NBA three point line is 23 feet out.

[NuggetsFan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_high_school_draftees

The rate of success of high school players that went straight to the NBA is actually very high. There have been tons and tons of busts that went to college and then flamed out in the NBA. There is zero proof that college ever helped any player develop beyond what he was capable of.

The sample sizes are so different it's beyond stupid to even compare it like that. Way more players come from college rather than right of HS so obviously going to be more busts. Just common sense :confusedshrug:

I think the best answer is depending on the player. Jordan Hamilton probably does better with another year of school than getting stuck on the Nuggets not getting any playing time. Faried however probably didn't need to stay in school as long as he did. He dominated offensively with his motor\athletic ability. His rebounding\effort would still have been there but maybe if he's in the NBA sooner his offensive game develops better.

[NuggetsFan]

There is zero proof that college athletics helps players in hockey

NHL players get drafted at 17-18. Usually they stay with their junior teams in the CHL|WHL|QMHL or whatever Europe\Uni their playing at. Some times teams will bring their guy's up but only if their really ready. You'll see guy's get called up in the playoffs\regular season for a few games.

Last year from 2012 draft there was 3 players who played off the top of my head. Lando, RNH, Couts.

Assuming your talking about players getting developed in other area's in general besides the prof leagues seeing as you used hockey.

[Sarcastic]

NHL players get drafted at 17-18. Usually they stay with their junior teams in the CHL|WHL|QMHL or whatever Europe\Uni their playing at. Some times teams will bring their guy's up but only if their really ready. You'll see guy's get called up in the playoffs\regular season for a few games.

Last year from 2012 draft there was 3 players who played off the top of my head. Lando, RNH, Couts.

Assuming your talking about players getting developed in other area's in general besides the prof leagues seeing as you used hockey.

The point is, they can get paid if they want. They aren't forced into indentured servitude.

[Real Men Wear Green]

But he didn't and you have no proof to prove otherwise that going to college didn't improve his game. It's just your opinion. And you have proof that he couldn't have improved under NBA coaches? Coaching is coaching...that's just a fact.


I never said that all kids should go to college. Certain kids don't need it, but a lot of kids do. People like Derrick Rose, LeBron, Amare, or whomever don't need college, but there are clear and cut cases where going to an environment where playing against lesser competition and slowly building your skill set and talent is more beneficial than going to college. AndI never said that every player is ready for the NBA coming out of hs. I'm saying that college is no better at developing talent and possibly worse.


Rates are irrelevant here. Every year thousands of players graduate from college while you have a sample size of probably not even 50. Ofcourse a rate over thousands versus 50 it's going to be different. You have LeBron, Dwight, Kobe, KG, T-Mac who are clear cases of people who didn't need to go to college represent 10-13% of your data and that's just 5 people. There's no comparison here. Then why complain about me allegedly nitpicking the success stories? I've always said that talent and drive dictates who makes it in the NBA more so than anything else.


It's like looking at the list for the best places to have neurosurgery. If you look at the rates of success, it's lower than the industry average. Is that misleading? Should I go to the one with 60% success with just 10 surgeries or to the place with 15% success with 1000s of surgeries. You just can't look at the rate and assume that there's a tell all there.

I doin't see what relevance this has to anything being discussed.


No it's not. Not one bit. You said "there's nothing that goes on that can't be taught." You're telling me a smart person cannot learn biochemistry, anatomy, nutrition without the help of school? You comparing an intellectual subject to a physical subject is an awful comparison. However, if you think a talented basketball player like Kevin Garnett can learn how to score in the post, how come a guy like Frank Abagnale pass the bar exam without going to law school? How can a guy like Richard Branson who dropped out of school at 16 become one of the most successful people in the world? This is all irrelevant. The NBA has coaches. Who can show KG more about playing the post in the NBA, whoever South Carolina had on staff in the late 90s or Kevin McHale? And again, this is basketball, not neuroscience. Basketball is not a subject that you need to be certified for after years of classroom study...your comparison is a waste of both our time to even talk about. Really useless. No offense.


Like I said, for some people school makes no sense. So yes, nothing is really sacred about school. However, not everyone are that talented and special. Most people need it. To deny that, is just a fallacy and just plain retarded.Never said no one should go to college.


Deron Williams wouldn't have been as great as he is today if he didn't go to school and worked hard and got better every year. He was overweight, slow, and dribbled too high. No team would've drafted him and invested the proper player development time like Illinois did. Same goes guys like Paul Millsap, Ryan Anderson, Joakim Noah, or Al Horford. Those guys needed the years in college. Sure their development skyrocked once they got into the NBA, but that's what happens when you do anything full-time. However, if you think that if they went to the NBA t 17, 18 years old and would be as good, or better than they are today, you're most likely wrong. No team would've found it a worthwhile investment to allow them to develop 2-3 years to see their production.How many times do you need me to repeat that I'm talking about the NBA's ability to develop talent vs. College, not whether or not every guy gets drafted out of HS? And FYI, there are a number of guys that teams were willing to develop for years before using. JO, Perk, and McGrady are the three that come to my mind. The reason the NBA instituted the age limit (or at least, a reason) is that owners wanted to reduce the # of years they paid for that kind of raw player, but they showed that with no rule in place they would in fact draft and pay raw talent. But if Noah, Williams, etc. and whoever got NBA coaching from the age of 18 there's no reason to think they wouldn't be as good or better. What, do NCAAcoaches know something about ball NBA coaches don't? It's nonsense.



It's not a myth. You're looking purely at people who obviously don't need college to succeed. This more of a case of self-selection. Everyday people succeed without the use of school, whether it be in basketball, business, art, or whatever. You can be a LeBron James, Antonio Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs without having spent one day at school. But the truth is, not everyone can be those guys. The truth is that most people need school, they need that environment that's detached from the working world so they can make mistakes and get better at their own pace, before they're measured on their return on investment.
It's clearly nonsnse. Don't think I need to repeat the same points again. Do I?

[Sarcastic]

If college coaches were so great at developing talent, then why don't more college coaches coach in the NBA?

College coaches actually end up having very poor success at the pro level. I think Larry Brown is the only one to win at both levels.

[wang4three]

And you have proof that he couldn't have improved under NBA coaches? Coaching is coaching...that's just a fact.

So every coach has the same level of coaching ability and talent?



Then why complain about me allegedly nitpicking the success stories? I've always said that talent and drive dictates who makes it in the NBA more so than anything else.

Never mentioned in your initial post. You only draw extreme comparisons between KG and LeBron to Javale McGee and DeAndre Jordan.




I doin't see what relevance this has to anything being discussed.

Because your use of rates is not applicable.



This is all irrelevant. The NBA has coaches. Who can show KG more about playing the post in the NBA, whoever South Carolina had on staff in the late 90s or Kevin McHale?

But coaching is coaching, right?


And again, this is basketball, not neuroscience. Basketball is not a subject that you need to be certified for after years of classroom study...your comparison is a waste of both our time to even talk about. Really useless. No offense.

Every single day you see people do remarkable things without having learned it formally. People have performed surgeries just by researching about it, learned to program complex computing languages without having entered into a classroom, or successfully defended themselves in court against real lawyers. The underlying reason for is that certain people are talented to do things without a formal education. But like I said, it's those are just the extreme talented individuals only. Assuming that any player with some talent can jump into the pros is false.



Never said no one should go to college.

Never said you did. You're implying that college doesn't help people any more than going into the pros itself.




The reason the NBA instituted the age limit (or at least, a reason) is that owners wanted to reduce the # of years they paid for that kind of raw player, but they showed that with no rule in place they would in fact draft and pay raw talent. But if Noah, Williams, etc. and whoever got NBA coaching from the age of 18 there's no reason to think they wouldn't be as good or better. What, do NCAAcoaches know something about ball NBA coaches don't? It's nonsense.


I absolutely think there's a reason to think that. It's not all about the X's and O's. It's dealing with mental maturity and learning how to be a parental and policing figure. I doubt NBA coaches have the latitude to deal with immaturity and adolescent of a teenage youth. Deron and Joakim both dealt with immaturity issues in their college years and still somewhat battle them today. You think Jerry Sloan had problems with Deron at 26, you think he could've dealt with Deron at 18/19 who had worse temper issues as well? Only in college will coaches give him the latitude of being that immature.

And I think the rule was put in place to prevent NBA GMs from fortuning off their futures by drafting high school players. Year by year, the drafting of high school players increased and I think 2006, the last year was at its high. I honestly believed if they continued the trend, you would've seen an entire first round of all high school students and begin to see a VERY high percentage of them fizz out and become nobodies that should've gone to college to receive the latitude of being immature (like mentioned above) or be put in an environment where they could learn from their mistakes without much risk be attached to them.


It's clearly nonsnse. Don't think I need to repeat the same points again. Do I?

Feeling is mutual.

You say that college training does nothing and sometimes makes players worse. Why is it that some players who jump into the league after 1 year of college become much worse when entering the pros? Guys like Daniel Orton, Ed Davis, Javaris Crittenton, JJ Hickson, Kosta Koufos, or Donte Green? Now that they're receiving NBA training, shouldn't they better, according to you? I highly doubt 1 year of college training derailed them into a position where they can't climb back from.

[28renyoy]

People are fvking dumb. He would be no better player today if he were to have gone to college. Just LOL @ somehow thinking going to college will better develop your game than the nba. You really think college assistants are getting paid more than nba assistants? He would have been better at the beginning of his rookie year, but that's due to having played a higher level for a year. However after that there is NO difference once he gets adjusted to the league. Nba players get paid to play basketball. College basketball players are there for an education and have practice restrictions.

It's also a matter of aging. Most players aren't physically mature enough to go pro at 18. By age 22, you're near peak as far as athleticism goes

[Owl]

wasn't clevelands fault.
we were gonna give boozer a bigger contract and right when we released him he went to another team. one of the most unloyal things i've ever heard of.
It was very harsh what he did (depending on whose side of events you believe, certainly Cleveland believed an implicit deal was in place though such a deal would have been illegal), and to be fair cap rules limiting how much of a raise you could give to 2nd rounders was always going to be a problem for re-signing Boozer.
The general point that Cleveland squandered opportunites to add young talent stands though.



I absolutely think there's a reason to think that. It's not all about the X's and O's. It's dealing with mental maturity and learning how to be a parental and policing figure. I doubt NBA coaches have the latitude to deal with immaturity and adolescent of a teenage youth. Deron and Joakim both dealt with immaturity issues in their college years and still somewhat battle them today. You think Jerry Sloan had problems with Deron at 26, you think he could've dealt with Deron at 18/19 who had worse temper issues as well? Only in college will coaches give him the latitude of being that immature.

And I think the rule was put in place to prevent NBA GMs from fortuning off their futures by drafting high school players. Year by year, the drafting of high school players increased and I think 2006, the last year was at its high. I honestly believed if they continued the trend, you would've seen an entire first round of all high school students and begin to see a VERY high percentage of them fizz out and become nobodies that should've gone to college to receive the latitude of being immature (like mentioned above) or be put in an environment where they could learn from their mistakes without much risk be attached to them.


Feeling is mutual.

You say that college training does nothing and sometimes makes players worse. Why is it that some players who jump into the league after 1 year of college become much worse when entering the pros? Guys like Daniel Orton, Ed Davis, Javaris Crittenton, JJ Hickson, Kosta Koufos, or Donte Green? Now that they're receiving NBA training, shouldn't they better, according to you? I highly doubt 1 year of college training derailed them into a position where they can't climb back from.
His point is not about college coaches being better disciplinarians or pastoral figures its about college coaches being mystical gatekeepers to the fundamentals of basketball who are definitely the best people to improve your game. Of course if you're a pro on a pro contract you're harder to discipline than a collegian.

You think an entire class of players would come out "too early" and that no GM would notice that is wasn't working. This idea makes no sense. Whenever a trend gets too popular (e.g. high schoolers and euros too highly rated in the early 2000s) the bubble bursts people see it isn't working and GMs adjust expectations accordingly.

I haven't read the thread that closely (not today anyway) but I don't think anyone was arguing that college wasn't for anybody or "makes players worse". If a player is unlikely to recieve sufficient minutes in the NBA (a la, say Daniel Orton) then it isn't the fault of coaching but a mistaken decision to the enter the NBA when you are not yet an NBA level talent. College is a place where players can develop and get minutes, but it isn't for everyone, it won't necessarily make you more mature (the early 90's youngsters including Dream Team II, Kenny Anderson, Sprewell etc practically all went to college got little out of it and continued to be maligned as pros) and the quality of coaching there is mixed (as it is at all levels).

[Real Men Wear Green]

So every coach has the same level of coaching ability and talent? No, some are better. There are exceptions, but they tend to go to the NBA where they make more money and have higher stakes.


Never mentioned in your initial post. You only draw extreme comparisons between KG and LeBron to Javale McGee and DeAndre Jordan. How many bigs came out of the NCAA with refined games? vs. NCAA coaches using their guy's size advantage to dunk and block shots?


Because your use of rates is not applicable. Your point has been overwhelmed. The rates show that if a guy can stick in the NBA he can develop there fine.



Every single day you see people do remarkable things without having learned it formally. People have performed surgeries just by researching about it, learned to program complex computing languages without having entered into a classroom, or successfully defended themselves in court against real lawyers. The underlying reason for is that certain people are talented to do things without a formal education. But like I said, it's those are just the extreme talented individuals only. Assuming that any player with some talent can jump into the pros is false. I really don't know why you harp on whatever point you think you're making here. There is a huge difference between being talented at basketball and brain surgery. If you take the equivalent of Kobe Bryant as a doctor and have him perform heart surgery at 18 the patient dies when he misses four consecutive jumpers vs. the Jazz. This is just an irrelevant topic.



Never said you did. You're implying that college doesn't help people any more than going into the pros itself. Yes, this much is true.


I absolutely think there's a reason to think that. It's not all about the X's and O's. It's dealing with mental maturity and learning how to be a parental and policing figure. I doubt NBA coaches have the latitude to deal with immaturity and adolescent of a teenage youth. Deron and Joakim both dealt with immaturity issues in their college years and still somewhat battle them today. You think Jerry Sloan had problems with Deron at 26, you think he could've dealt with Deron at 18/19 who had worse temper issues as well? Only in college will coaches give him the latitude of being that immature.So pro athletes that went to school don't get arrested, have too many kids out of wedlock, argue with coaches, etc.? You have no point here, again.


And I think the rule was put in place to prevent NBA GMs from fortuning off their futures by drafting high school players. Year by year, the drafting of high school players increased and I think 2006, the last year was at its high. I honestly believed if they continued the trend, you would've seen an entire first round of all high school students and begin to see a VERY high percentage of them fizz out and become nobodies that should've gone to college to receive the latitude of being immature (like mentioned above) or be put in an environment where they could learn from their mistakes without much risk be attached to them. That's your theory. It's never been justified by reality.



You say that college training does nothing and sometimes makes players worse. Why is it that some players who jump into the league after 1 year of college become much worse when entering the pros? Guys like Daniel Orton, Ed Davis, Javaris Crittenton, JJ Hickson, Kosta Koufos, or Donte Green? Now that they're receiving NBA training, shouldn't they better, according to you? I highly doubt 1 year of college training derailed them into a position where they can't climb back from.
LOL. Where did I say college makes players worse? I've said that NBA coaches are generally better, and that's the truth. The higher-paying job attracts the higher-level talent. The NBA is better at improving players. That is not me saying that guys get worse in the NCAA. Can't see the difference? Your problem, not mine.

[wang4three]

LOL. Where did I say college makes players worse? I've said that NBA coaches are generally better, and that's the truth. The higher-paying job attracts the higher-level talent. The NBA is better at improving players. That is not me saying that guys get worse in the NCAA. Can't see the difference? Your problem, not mine.

I'm not going to reply to the rest cause it's nonsense and it appears as if you're not even keeping track of your own statements. You clearly stated in post #42,
"I'm saying that college is no better at developing talent and possibly worse." Despite that "coaching is coaching..that is a fact" or whatever simplistic concepts you have about coaching and the NCAA.

Whatever, you can have your opinion. Clearly not worth my time.

[Owl]

I'm not going to reply to the rest cause it's nonsense and it appears as if you're not even keeping track of your own statements. You clearly stated in post #42,
"I'm saying that college is no better at developing talent and possibly worse." Despite that "coaching is coaching..that is a fact" or whatever simplistic concepts you have about coaching and the NCAA.

Whatever, you can have your opinion. Clearly not worth my time.
He said it was possibly worse at developing talent (than the pros) not that it made players worse. There's no ambiguity to it ..... whatsoever.

[Bigsmoke]

LeBron wouldnt have been athletic as he it now.

[Lebron23]

He won't be a 3x NBA MVP at age 27 yrs.old.LBJ made the right decision. He's still the youngest Rookie of the Year in History.

[LosBulls]

Certain players doesn't make a difference if they went to college. I think someone like Bynum could have benefit more not being rich for a year or two and having to worry about his life a little more. Have so more legit worries, even though his future would have still been very bright compare to the average person.
Bynum would of injured himself and never reached the NBA.

[Real Men Wear Green]

He said it was possibly worse at developing talent (than the pros) not that it made players worse. There's no ambiguity to it ..... whatsoever.
Guess I needed a translator. Thank you, but I'm not sure he wants to listen.