Moderators: UAdevil, JMarkJohns
Wow, it's not often you see someone be racist against white people and black people in a single sentence. I'm just waiting for you to drop a "you people" bomb on all races.Chicat wrote:Yes, well-spoken. You know, as opposed to Johnny "mush mouth" Manziel.Spaceman Spiff wrote:Well spoken? You're lucky I can't figure out how to copy Chris Rock stand up routines on my wife's phone.
I only say "you people" when referring to those still at TOS.Spaceman Spiff wrote:Wow, it's not often you see someone be racist against white people and black people in a single sentence. I'm just waiting for you to drop a "you people" bomb on all races.Chicat wrote:Yes, well-spoken. You know, as opposed to Johnny "mush mouth" Manziel.Spaceman Spiff wrote:Well spoken? You're lucky I can't figure out how to copy Chris Rock stand up routines on my wife's phone.
Looks like things got better, judging from that trophy.CatnapTom wrote:I don't mean to sound too critical, after all it's almost five months before the season starts, but hasn't Stanley Johnson's performance on the USA18 team been a bit disappointing . His numbers seem fine, but his attitude seems suspect. In all three games so far he's started off overly aggressive and prone to miscues and turnovers that have drawn the coaches immediate attention (and benching in the last game). Hopefully, everything goes better for him in the next upcoming game today.
perfect77HoyaCat4Ever wrote:Wow!97cats wrote:Main Event wrote:
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-bas ... mock-draft3. Stanley Johnson (Arizona)
Johnson was the leading scorer on the USA Basketball team that just won the FIBA Americas U18 tournament. The 6-7 wing averaged 14.0 points and 5.4 rebounds in that five-game event. He's among the reasons Arizona will again be picked to win the Pac-12, and he's going to be the next one-and-done star for Sean Miller.
One day it will be the Junior Jamboree. One day...gumby wrote:Freshman Focus!
Turner at 9 seems way too low. Okafor is a beast. Not sure he goes #1 but damn it's going to be fun watching him at the NCAA level, aside from the fact that he plays for the Devil.Main Event wrote:Predicting 2015 NBA Draft lottery
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-bas ... mock-draft3. Stanley Johnson (Arizona)
Johnson was the leading scorer on the USA Basketball team that just won the FIBA Americas U18 tournament. The 6-7 wing averaged 14.0 points and 5.4 rebounds in that five-game event. He's among the reasons Arizona will again be picked to win the Pac-12, and he's going to be the next one-and-done star for Sean Miller.
Keep reading guys....Main Event wrote:Predicting 2015 NBA Draft lottery
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-bas ... mock-draft3. Stanley Johnson (Arizona)
Johnson was the leading scorer on the USA Basketball team that just won the FIBA Americas U18 tournament. The 6-7 wing averaged 14.0 points and 5.4 rebounds in that five-game event. He's among the reasons Arizona will again be picked to win the Pac-12, and he's going to be the next one-and-done star for Sean Miller.
EDIT: Sorry thought I was in the 2015 thread. Still nice to see though!13. Rondae Hollis-Jefferson (Arizona)
Hollis-Jefferson was the fifth leading scorer on the Arizona team that won the Pac-12, meaning he was mostly overshadowed. But NBA scouts remain very aware of his talents, and who's going to have a better pair of true wings next season than the Wildcats with Johnson and Hollis-Jefferson? (Answer: Nobody)
prh wrote:Keep reading guys....Main Event wrote:Predicting 2015 NBA Draft lottery
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-bas ... mock-draft3. Stanley Johnson (Arizona)
Johnson was the leading scorer on the USA Basketball team that just won the FIBA Americas U18 tournament. The 6-7 wing averaged 14.0 points and 5.4 rebounds in that five-game event. He's among the reasons Arizona will again be picked to win the Pac-12, and he's going to be the next one-and-done star for Sean Miller.I hope that by the time next season is over, people will see the folly of slotting him below LeVert and Oubre. Caris LeVert is no Gerald LeVert.13. Rondae Hollis-Jefferson (Arizona)
Hollis-Jefferson was the fifth leading scorer on the Arizona team that won the Pac-12, meaning he was mostly overshadowed. But NBA scouts remain very aware of his talents, and who's going to have a better pair of true wings next season than the Wildcats with Johnson and Hollis-Jefferson? (Answer: Nobody)
EDIT: Sorry thought I was in the 2015 thread. Still nice to see though!
School/Education?*thenewazcats wrote:Watching Stanley dunk all over short white kids makes me realize how stupid it is forcing a kid that big and talented to not only play college basketball but high school basketball, too. I know, it's sacrilege to say so, but what's the point? Yeah, the kid develops, but can anyone find a motive for this that isn't remotely selfish? I want college sports to continue but with the NCAA lawsuits and just looking at the way soccer develops players across the world makes me think that the days of play without pay are very numbered.
If basketball goes the soccer or baseball route, with teams investing in minor league or academy systems, controlling the coaching of the development process, not only does it satisfy the players but it probably reintroduces a higher level of individual and team skill at the highest level. Yes, we lose out as college fans, but that's probably going to happen anyway because of these lawsuits. Even if college sports survives, I just don't think it's going to be the same in 10-20 years.
I'm going to enjoy watching the talents that Miller brings in while I can. Not sure my kids will get to do the same as they grow up.
Senior Serenade?Chicat wrote:One day it will be the Junior Jamboree. One day...gumby wrote:Freshman Focus!
if Stanley Johnson matches (or heaven help us) exceeds the impact of Mike Bibby than we can continue this discussion at the appropriate time.luteformayor2 wrote:Have never been so confident that a freshman will produce. His impact will be larger than any freshman we've had before.
I have a tough time seeing him automatically outdo Bibby or AG. Luteformayor, if he does, please meet me at the national championship celebration and I will offer my sincerest apologies for lacking faith.97cats wrote:if Stanley Johnson matches (or heaven help us) exceeds the impact of Mike Bibby than we can continue this discussion at the appropriate time.luteformayor2 wrote:Have never been so confident that a freshman will produce. His impact will be larger than any freshman we've had before.
I'd be a little surprised by the 16, only because we have a lot of firepower he will need to share shots with.Main Event wrote:Salim put up 13 a game his freshman year
Elliott put up 16 and 5.
I think Elliott type production is reachable for him
Ah, the other Elliott.KaibabKat wrote:If he averages better than 16.5 ppg and 10.7 rpg as a Freshman I will then agree.
Until then...
I encourage you to read my post again, then tell me where I questioned the point of getting a high school education. I questioned the point in making kids like Stanley, elite athletes with a glaringly obvious future in professional sports, play high school and college sports. Kids in soccer academies still get an education. My point is that if the NFL or NBA developed a farm system or academy system that was a viable alternative to college or high school sports, it would produce a better end product at the highest level because 1) the pro sport organizations would control the programs, 2) competition wouldn't be diluted with opponents/teammates who have no chance at making it professionally and can't emulate those who do, and 3) they would train year round under (ideally) better coaching.gumby wrote:What's the point of going to high school? Really? Can't think of anything? Like the same reason your kids should attend? NBA farm system? Please proceed. College ball survived the last time these guys could go right to college. Amd there is no system where you pay SJ in college without paying the scrubs, too. Or the athletes in non-rev. sports. Good luck shaking dough loose for that.
Bibby was more than numbers. Bayless actually had higher numbers. Love these predictions before they've played against college teams. Always entertaining.
Yes, I misread it. Sorry. But is playing high school ball actually an issue for them? When you say "forced to" ... by whom? Or do you mean, they have no choice?thenewazcats wrote:I encourage you to read my post again, then tell me where I questioned the point of getting a high school education. I questioned the point in making kids like Stanley, elite athletes with a glaringly obvious future in professional sports, play high school and college sports. Kids in soccer academies still get an education. My point is that if the NFL or NBA developed a farm system or academy system that was a viable alternative to college or high school sports, it would produce a better end product at the highest level because 1) the pro sport organizations would control the programs, 2) competition wouldn't be diluted with opponents/teammates who have no chance at making it professionally and can't emulate those who do, and 3) they would train year round under (ideally) better coaching.gumby wrote:What's the point of going to high school? Really? Can't think of anything? Like the same reason your kids should attend? NBA farm system? Please proceed. College ball survived the last time these guys could go right to college. Amd there is no system where you pay SJ in college without paying the scrubs, too. Or the athletes in non-rev. sports. Good luck shaking dough loose for that.
Bibby was more than numbers. Bayless actually had higher numbers. Love these predictions before they've played against college teams. Always entertaining.
Why make kids whose future is in professional sports waste valuable developmental time playing against weak competition on high school teams or pursuing a college degree for a year or two or three when they have no interest in the actual pursuit or ends? Stanley Johnson isn't coming to Arizona for a scholastic education. I mean, does anyone really think that? Nick Johnson was one year from his degree and was happy to leave to become a second round NBA selection. Do we think he came to Arizona for the scholastic education?
I don't think the NCAA should be paying athletes. A scholarship is valuable for those who plan on actually getting the education. I also don't think it's the NCAA's fault that pro organizations haven't created viable developmental alternatives where kids with skills can get paid while developing against better competition. It seems simple to me. Pro sports will benefit from a better product. Elite young athletes want to be paid. Set up a farm/academy system that works. Let those who don't qualify for the system play at the amateur level. But why in the world is Stanley Johnson or Aaron Gordon playing at least one year of college basketball before qualifying for the pros? If your answer is education, you're being naive.
http://www.hardwoodinsiders.com/2014/06 ... emy-recap/STANLEY JOHNSON, University of Arizona, 6-foot-7 Freshman – Wildcat fans better savor his game while they can, because Johnson looks like a Top-5 pick in next year’s NBA Draft. For a guy who is a highlight reel on the fast break, he’s a very unselfish player who looks to find the open man. When he’s on the court, he plays with a rare competitive fire. And for a guy with such strength and size, he has some advanced mechanics, balance and footwork on his jump shot, both off the catch-and-shoot and off the dribble. He powers to the rim and is looking to rip it off once he gets there. Johnson is also a rugged rebounder who takes pride in the combat within the paint. On the defensive end, he can guard multiple positions. Next year, he’ll be a beast as a shooting guard, small forward and power forward on the college level.
http://www.finestmag.com/apps/blogStanley Johnson came in to camp with as much or more hype than anyone else and he lived up to it. Johnson had a very business-like approach throughout camp. Johnson has a very compact jump shot and has not extra motion. Johnson showed the capability to be a good defender because of his strength and willingness to accept the challenge regardless of who he was matched up against. On the offensive end Johnson either bullied his way all the way to the rim or splashed home jumpers out to the college three-point line. Another very noticeable aspect of Johnson’s camp experience was his work ethic. On the second day of camp he and one other player (Sam Dekker) were the only ones to get up extra shots with the coaching staff.
Stanley Johnson - 6'7 1/2/ 235/ Freshman/ Arizona
Seeing Stanley Johnson in person the first thing that jumps out at you is his size, he is a big boy! The 235 listing appears to be right on and to be a wing with that size, you can understand why he manhandled the comp in high school, literally and figuratively. Add a game that is tailored made for putting the ball in the basket and you understand why he was so coveted coming out of high school. Johnson can score at will, with the ability to hit jumpers from anywhere on the court and having the explosiveness and strength to get to the bucket on drives and even from the post at will, Johnson was a handful to deal with during play at the camp. The only thing is he has to improve his defense. He has the tools to be a good defender, however until he makes it a priority it will be average to sub par at best. As much as he gave, he definitely took in return and with his projected position likely being as a 2 or 3 at the next level and beyond, he will have to make that a priority sooner rather than later. Regardless, he is a special talent and one that should do major damage for Arizona next season.
If I had a vote, I'd be right there with you. Selfishly, I want CBB to survive and AZ basketball to continue dominating. I just don't think what we want makes sense for the best players or the end product, but that won't stop me from enjoying us fans getting what we want for a bit longer, or however long it lasts.Puerco wrote:The problem with having farm systems in football and basketball would be the impact it would have on collegiate sports. Would they survive? Probably so, but I wager that their popularity would be vastly reduced. Perhaps even to the level of college baseball today. Reason? As opposed to the day when the NBA allowed kids to enter directly from high school, a true farm system would take in many times the number of players the NBA actually did back then. There would likely have to be multiple layers of farm teams, to the point where every mid-sized town would have one, much like with single-A baseball. Same story with football, but that ain't going to happen with the legal risks coming in the future.
Would this kind of system improve basketball and the level of play in the NBA? I'm sure it would. But watching my UA games would not be nearly as exciting, and since I couldn't care less about the NBA, I vote no.
I don't know if playing high school ball is an issue for them. They're not really forced by anyone. That's just lazy writing on my part.gumby wrote:But is playing high school ball actually an issue for them? When you say "forced to" ... by whom? Or do you mean, they have no choice?
Is this an actual burden that they complain about? If there's a market for what you want, it will materialize. is there some structure/organization blocking this?
I actually like the idea of club sports. Free up more money for education.
I've said it before, but I don't buy this at all. Richer schools use that wealth to attract players already.midnightx wrote:There are so many flaws with concept of paying NCAA athletes contracts, salaries, revenue sharing etc. Very few NCAA student athletes (particularly in Football and Basketball) actually have a chance to play professional sports after college. We focus on the major programs, but the majority of college teams are not major programs and rarely produce professional athletes. So, how do you even begin to determine who gets paid what? Do all starting quarterbacks get paid the same, or does someone like Manziel get paid significantly more? Or do you play the players a percentage of what their team generates? Do starters make more than bench players or backup players? The potential for mass corruption is enormous. If athletes become paid employees, what happens to academic requirements? Why give someone $20-$30K a year in tuition/living expenses via a scholarship when they are also being paid in some capacity to play a sport? One of the only fair ways to deal with the issue if one goes down that bumpy road is give the athletes some sort of revenue sharing capacity that is split evenly nationally, and that is paid when the student/athlete leaves school (either at graduation or when they choose to try to get drafted). If individual schools can pay larger payments due to their own massive revenue streams (like Alabama football), it will destroy sports and usher in an era of mass corruption.
If the NFL and NBA want to create a real farm system, then those concepts should be developed. The reality is, there will be very little national interest in watching farm system games. How much can you pay a kid to play basketball in a farm system that few people will watch and that will generate little advertising/sponsorship revenues? More than the D-League? The kids will have little ability to create a buzz and a brand because no one will really care. Fans of college sports just don't watch because there is some charismatic starter, they watch because of their allegiance to the team and school. They watch every year. AZ fans are going to watch basketball this year with or without Aaron Gordon. If all the best athletes choose to go farm system leagues, the viewership will drop in college sports, but not entirely. It is still a viable product because even if a faction of elite athletes bypass playing at the collegiate level, there will still be many talented kids playing and keeping the game interesting and exciting.
You mentioned Alabama football. According to rivals, they had had the #1 ranked recruiting class four years in a row. How level is the playing field?thenewazcats wrote:"Our school can offer you a better experience" vs "We will give you more money" have two very different impacts on the perception of a level playing field. That's not hard to see even if our heads are buried in the sand.
Exactly; there are already enough advantages for some programs. For example, if football programs like Alabama, Texas and USC with huge financial alumni support already have an advantage because of the money that is pumped into facilities and the respective programs; what happens if revenue sharing is based on a percentage each program generates? The disparity will create even more advantages than are already in place.Spaceman Spiff wrote:You mentioned Alabama football. According to rivals, they had had the #1 ranked recruiting class four years in a row. How level is the playing field?thenewazcats wrote:"Our school can offer you a better experience" vs "We will give you more money" have two very different impacts on the perception of a level playing field. That's not hard to see even if our heads are buried in the sand.
