Jump to content

Deleterious

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

Recommended Posts

There is another interesting point about the math here - consider that the pool of NBA players has stayed pretty much the same size = 30 * 13 = 390 and the figure I've seen is that the average career is 5 yrs, to that means the replacement rate into the NBA is roughly 80 players per year. There are about 130 div I basketball schools. If each recruits 3.5 guys a year, that is 455 players, so about 1 in six of a coach's recruits would be an NBA talent level player each cycle (fewer if you count Euros coming ino the league but we'll ignore that). 

Now if your recruiting doubles, but the size of the NBA pipe at the other end stays the same, that means that only 1 in 12 of the guys you have to recruit are NBA talent level. So there is the odd result that one and done means schools have to recruit to a lower playing standard than they used to - but of course the worse result is that at the other end of that pipeline you have all the kids that leave early and can't make it in the league. They have a nice pile of draft money - but no degree and few prospects once they burn through their stash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

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

except that the implied cost benefit trade off doesn't actually get made because it's the schools that suffer from the cheating while the terms of the CBA apply between the players and the league - the school's interests are not a party to that negotiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And TBF, it's not up the NBA to solve the NCAA's problems - the NCAA is perfectly capable of fixing their own house - that is where a cost benefit calculation is being applied, and badly to my view. The trade-off  is how much revenue a UConn loses for never having had an Andre Drummond - who would have gone to the D league (or equiv) if freshmen had been ineligible, versus the value of making a dent in the recruiting morass generally across the NCAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Because I need to be entertained.

the whole reason their scholarship exists is because i am entertained.

i wonder what a reasonable solution to this "problem" is?  stipends?  when i was im grad school i got a stipend, why not give one to athletes too?

of course, i doubt that solves the "problem" of athletes getting money from agents.  that wont stop.  or money from boosters.  

they should let them sign with agents and get paid by them.  at the end of the day, people want to see the school they attended/root for/root against keep playing sports.  i dont think too many people really care about whether they are getting cash on the side or not.  the thing that people want to preserve is the attachment to their school and watching that school play games.  you can do that and have the players make side money.  you cant do that with a minor league system no one cares about.

if they dont want to go to college and instead want to go into the nba, have at it.  but the ones who go to college need to actually be enrolled in classes, i would think.  

here's a question: if college players can be paid on the side and still play college ball, if you dont go to college and try for the nba and wash out after a few years, should you be able to enroll in college on a sports scholarship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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?

Because a lot of these one and done players are only going to college because they have to, they are merely just trying not to get hurt and they certainly aren't in it for the education. 

Why shouldn't they have a right to earn a living after high school and help them and their family financially, so schools can make money off of them? Other sports allow 18 year olds to play pro, why should basketball be different?  At least if there was the 2 year rule, they have a choice in the matter. 

Share this post


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

the whole reason their scholarship exists is because i am entertained.

i wonder what a reasonable solution to this "problem" is?  stipends?  when i was im grad school i got a stipend, why not give one to athletes too?

of course, i doubt that solves the "problem" of athletes getting money from agents.  that wont stop.  or money from boosters.  

they should let them sign with agents and get paid by them.  at the end of the day, people want to see the school they attended/root for/root against keep playing sports.  i dont think too many people really care about whether they are getting cash on the side or not.  the thing that people want to preserve is the attachment to their school and watching that school play games.  you can do that and have the players make side money.  you cant do that with a minor league system no one cares about.

if they dont want to go to college and instead want to go into the nba, have at it.  but the ones who go to college need to actually be enrolled in classes, i would think.  

here's a question: if college players can be paid on the side and still play college ball, if you dont go to college and try for the nba and wash out after a few years, should you be able to enroll in college on a sports scholarship?

this raises all kinds of good questions. I think the idea of guys coming back to school if they wash out as pros is interesting in theory, but there is the practical problem that in most sports 23-26  yr olds can dominate 18-20 yrs olds since they are much stronger, so the older players would end up dominating and there would be no room for the "college age" kids. That seems antithetical to the university mission in general. And that really is the nub of the issue. What is the University interest/objective in all this? The NCAA has been on intellectual autopilot for so many years, content to just cash TV checks, that most them couldn't tell you why they do it anymore. The economics have now shifted to where at least 1/2 the schools don't make any money at it, and the level of dishonest behavior accepted as the cost is corrosive to the general mission of the University as a place where positive cultural values are supposed to be honored and passed on to the next generation.

At the student level, at UM in the day we loved Butch Wade as much as Phil Hubbard. We don't really need the LeBrons of the world on college teams for the sake of the "college" part of college athletics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I disagree.

The NCAA has been on intellectual autopilot from day 1.

You're right - my bad!   

xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding age, a decent percentage of hockey players are entering college as a 20-year old freshman as they play juniors for a year or two after high school in the hopes of latching on somewhere.  And that back washes to high school, where kids are entering private schools with powerhouse hockey programs as a 15/16 year old 9th grader (i.e. re-do 9th grade) to have an advantage on the ice, because, well, the other guy is doing it, and they know they aren't skilled enough to make a D1 college hockey team at 18, so what's the rush to graduate or enter college if dad can foot the bill?

It irritates me that this is becoming more and more a norm, but it is what it is.

In any event, if they did the stipend thing, I'd hard cap that at a being no older than 24 at graduation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have faith that he won't foul up the 2018 draft picks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He could mentor the young players and show them how to pay a woman off when she accuses him of rape.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm sure the moral scolds who didnt want to watch avery bradley will also forego watching any pistons team run by a man accused of sexual improprieties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

He could mentor the young players and show them how to pay a woman off when she accuses him of rape.  

I'm pretty sure that's covered in orientation day in the NBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pistons need to hire someone taller than Billups, so after they fire SVG he can put his hand on SVG's head and hold him back while he futilely flails his arm like in the cartoons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Should the Pistons be interviewing Sam Hinke?

Gores doesn't know who Sam Hinkie is.  He's not a name like Stan was or Phil Jackson was or Chauncey Billups is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Should the Pistons be interviewing Sam Hinke?

No.

You guys are still doing the Chicken Little routine.

How comical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they shouldn't contact Hinkie.  Things have been going great the past decade.  They should continue to do the same thing they have been doing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope SVG enjoys his retirement, at least until the next fool throws $20M at him to wreck their team and lock them in salary cap ****.

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

×