Jump to content

Deleterious

Sources: Pistons want Stan Van Gundy to coach, run basketball operations

Recommended Posts


43 minutes ago, MAROTH4MVP said:

Why? I think he is willing to spend money.

I am not sold on his ability to hire the right leadership in the front office for the Pistons though or is that your point?

he strikes me as a clown more concerned with shiny things.  i agree with the sentiment that gores has wanted to "make the playoffs now" since he bought the team and that this hurt the franchise immeasurably.

or maybe that he has a banner of himself next to the banner of the players?  or that he has platinum equity written on the floor?  i dont know, he seems like a real selfish narcissist and that might cloud my opinion of him.

the willingness to spend money doesnt help you as much in a salary capped league as it does in baseball.  in the nba, it can get you into trouble that hurts your team for years.  which is exactly what has happened to detroit, imo.

i think the pistons have a shot to be a middle of the pack team in the east next year but thats their ceiling because theyre capped out.

their real hope is that drummond continues to improve, reggie can return to form, and kennard/stanley develop into star players.  if that can happen in the next two years before blake really starts to decline, they have a shot at a first round home playoff series in the east.  if not?  they'll continue on this 8th seed or bust purgatory of the last decade for another 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Ok, sure?

This address nothing I wrote.

dude, is he calling you fat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SVG seems to have a lot smarter political views than he has basketball knowledge to be honest, maybe he should focus on that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pyrotigers said:

SVG seems to have a lot smarter political views than he has basketball knowledge to be honest, maybe he should focus on that

you think the ncaa one and done rule is racist?  i dont.  i think its stupid but not racist.  the reason they dont have those rules for college hockey or baseball is that no one cares about college hockey or college baseball so they dont have to make the kids stay.

get rid of the damn thing, i say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Buddha said:

he strikes me as a clown more concerned with shiny things.  i agree with the sentiment that gores has wanted to "make the playoffs now" since he bought the team and that this hurt the franchise immeasurably.

or maybe that he has a banner of himself next to the banner of the players?  or that he has platinum equity written on the floor?  i dont know, he seems like a real selfish narcissist and that might cloud my opinion of him.

the willingness to spend money doesnt help you as much in a salary capped league as it does in baseball.  in the nba, it can get you into trouble that hurts your team for years.  which is exactly what has happened to detroit, imo.

i think the pistons have a shot to be a middle of the pack team in the east next year but thats their ceiling because theyre capped out.

their real hope is that drummond continues to improve, reggie can return to form, and kennard/stanley develop into star players.  if that can happen in the next two years before blake really starts to decline, they have a shot at a first round home playoff series in the east.  if not?  they'll continue on this 8th seed or bust purgatory of the last decade for another 10 years.

Yup, this is pretty much where I am at.  

Except I know how to capitalize and stuff.  xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Buddha said:

you think the ncaa one and done rule is racist?  i dont.  i think its stupid but not racist.  the reason they dont have those rules for college hockey or baseball is that no one cares about college hockey or college baseball so they dont have to make the kids stay.

get rid of the damn thing, i say.

No, I don't really think it's racist, but his overall point about it being stupid and wrong was close enough to correct that it's still way better than his basketball coaching

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Buddha said:

you think the ncaa one and done rule is racist?  i dont.  i think its stupid but not racist.  the reason they dont have those rules for college hockey or baseball is that no one cares about college hockey or college baseball so they dont have to make the kids stay.

get rid of the damn thing, i say.

I don’t know that I think it racist, but I do find it stupid.

I think with the evolution of the G league, the NBA now has a chance to set up a minor league system along the lines of baseball and hockey.  I think the capacity for NBA teams to fill out a minor league roster team is definitely there in terms of talent.  I just wonder if the salaries will be there to keep some kids from going overseas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, pyrotigers said:

No, I don't really think it's racist, but his overall point about it being stupid and wrong was close enough to correct that it's still way better than his basketball coaching

true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Casimir said:

I don’t know that I think it racist, but I do find it stupid.

I think with the evolution of the G league, the NBA now has a chance to set up a minor league system along the lines of baseball and hockey.  I think the capacity for NBA teams to fill out a minor league roster team is definitely there in terms of talent.  I just wonder if the salaries will be there to keep some kids from going overseas.

Or even to get them away from the NCAA early.  :dead:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gehringer_2 said:

Or even to get them away from the NCAA early.  :dead:

Great point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love NCAA bball, but what good does it really do to the game for a player to spend 1 year there, about 3 months of that time he might be taking classes? It's just mind boggling to me.

If NBA GMs are too stupid to figure out not to draft some crappy high school center with Andre Drummond level post moves #1 overall because they didn't see him play in Piscataway on a rainy February evening, they deserve what they get

I really just hate this rule. At least in the NFL it's defensible on body/injury concerns with players coming into the league without a college weight program. Doesn't really make sense in any other sport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pyrotigers said:

I love NCAA bball, but what good does it really do to the game for a player to spend 1 year there, about 3 months of that time he might be taking classes? It's just mind boggling to me.

If NBA GMs are too stupid to figure out not to draft some crappy high school center with Andre Drummond level post moves #1 overall because they didn't see him play in Piscataway on a rainy February evening, they deserve what they get

I really just hate this rule. At least in the NFL it's defensible on body/injury concerns with players coming into the league without a college weight program. Doesn't really make sense in any other sport

But I though it was the players who had pushed for (and gotten) early eligibility and it was league push back just to get it back from 18 to 19 - or do I not remember who was on which side then? In any case, I think the status is that the courts won't let a league enforce an eligibility rule that is not the result of a collective bargaining agreement and since the rule is working great for the players ( a lot of not very good players are getting a LOT of money) I would think they would try to keep it.

Of course an easy answer that would go a long way toward improving the morass would be for the NCAA to re-enact freshman varsity ineligibility for all revenue sports, but they are too greedy themselves to do that. But it would mean that any player persuaded he was good enough to be in the NBA at 19 would go straight to the D-league instead of contributing to the facade by being a non-student student.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, pyrotigers said:

SVG seems to have a lot smarter political views than he has basketball knowledge to be honest, maybe he should focus on that

I think his views on the NCAA eligibility rules (calling it racist, wtf?) are idiotic too.  Don't know why everything goes back to racism, it's a big problem in this country and creates even more divisiveness but I digress.

As far as NCAA eligibility is concerned, I think high school players should be allowed to jump straight to the NBA but if they commit to college, they have to stay for 2 years or, like in football, if they redshirt 3 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NYLion said:

As far as NCAA eligibility is concerned, I think high school players should be allowed to jump straight to the NBA but if they commit to college, they have to stay for 2 years or, like in football, if they redshirt 3 years. 

Why?  Lots of people drop out after 1 or 2 years of college to get a job.  Why should sports be any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Casimir said:

Why?  Lots of people drop out after 1 or 2 years of college to get a job.  Why should sports be any different?

a couple of points - the attrition rates for people on scholarship is lower than the general student population - academic star students recruited to come to a school on full scholarship seldom bail early - and that would be the more apt comparison to me than the general student population.

Plus, there has been a shift since I was in school in terms of how the University (at least at M) sees attrition internally. They don't like it - they get dinged for it in the various kinds of ratings and they do push back against it as much as they can (there is more  tracking, more counseling, more support, greater flexibility for students with personal issues). In my own niche (College of Engin) attrition is much lower than it was when I was an undergrad - though again - not a good comparison because Engin school attrition is as often back to the Lit school as it is out of school completely.

Now clearly, the profile will be different at schools with more commuter or adult ed focus like EMU for instance, but most of the big State sports schools are probably more like UM than EMU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think students who receive scholarships for a sport that there is a major professional league are a different subset than athletes who receive scholarships in other sports (e.g. track and field, lacrosse, wrestling), to say nothing of those who receive an academic scholarship.

I have to imagine almost all students on academic scholarship applied to university primarily for academics.  Conversely, some athletes apply primarily for athletics and academics are not much of a consideration. 

I'd also guess the vast majority of athletes that leave school early to play professionally were both highly recruited and the school that signed the athlete knew there was at least a decent chance the athlete would leave early.  This is especially true for basketball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I think students who receive scholarships for a sport that there is a major professional league are a differen t subset than athletes who receive scholarships in other sports, to say nothing of those who receive an academic scholarship.

 

exactly - they are a class unto themselves - which is why I commented on Casmir's take that it's just 'normal' for this group of students to be leaving early in such numbers because others may be also. I would say there is pretty much nothing *normal* about any part of the  relationship between pro sports aspirants and the Universities that recruit them for revenue team competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I think students who receive scholarships for a sport that there is a major professional league are a different subset than athletes who receive scholarships in other sports (e.g. track and field, lacrosse, wrestling), to say nothing of those who receive an academic scholarship.

I have to imagine almost all students on academic scholarship applied to university primarily for academics.  Conversely, some athletes apply primarily for athletics and academics are not much of a consideration. 

I'd also guess the vast majority of athletes that leave school early to play professionally were both highly recruited and the school that signed the athlete knew there was at least a decent chance the athlete would leave early.  This is especially true for basketball.

Yup, buyer beware.  If a school wants to take on the risk of one & dones, so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gehringer_2 said:

exactly - they are a class unto themselves - which is why I disagree with Casmir's take that it's just 'normal' for this group of students to be leaving early in such numbers because others may be also. I would say there is pretty much nothing *normal* about any part of the  relationship between pro sports aspirants and the Universities that recruit them.

I don't believe that subset is normal either.  I just don't agree that they should be treated differently.  If they want to leave, if they have a job waiting for them, fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Casimir said:

I don't believe that subset is normal either.  I just don't agree that they should be treated differently.  If they want to leave, if they have a job waiting for them, fine.

at the practical level, the problem with students leaving early is that it increases the recruitment competition, and that is where most of the potential for abuse seems to be. The math is inescapable - if the average collegian plays 4 yrs, each school has 3.25 scholarships per year to grant, if the average is lowered to two years by 'one and done', it's 6.5 each year (I think it's 13 scholarships for BB but I could be wrong - doesn't really matter to the arg).  It just creates more pressure to cheat - now whether there really is more cheating because there is more recruiting may not be true - but it's one of those things I would tend to assume until shown otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately the question becomes whether the increased potential for cheating is enough of a reason to impose working restrictions on individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×