Bear Down Wildcats

Yikes, not sure how many times we are gonna go over this Dorsey thing.

SCCats wrote:

Olsondogg wrote:It's gotta be more west IMO. LIke a Mountain West/WCC school. SDSU, Zags or UNLV or something like that.

This is part of the game that others have mentioned and that irks me too. I don't want to be too specific about the school, but it's ok to go to the Zags or SDSU and develop but it's not cool to stay at Arizona and develop.

Caveat: Unless the player thinks he'll never be a starter here.

There's two kinds of development: There's the type where you go up against some of the best players in the country in practice every day until you are one too and can crack the rotation/starting lineup, and there's the type where you get thrown right into the fire and you get better by playing a lot and making a lot of mistakes. Some players and teams can afford the first type, and some can not.

Longhorned wrote:

gumby wrote:

KaibabKat wrote:

So, the knock on the kid is he can't shoot?

Justin Simon: 2015-16 points/field goal attempt = 1.22.

Gabe York: 2015-16 points/field goal attempt = 1.22.

Okey Dokey Greg.

Perfect example of stats without context. So I'm to believe they are equivalent shooters?
Damn that Miller for not running down screens for Justin Simon, so he could pop out and drain threes.

Kaibab, you're about 0 for 3000 on bothering to respond to objections to your posts. Do you just throw arguments out there without agreeing with them yourself, and then when we respond say, "Ha! I knew he couldn't resist pointing out the obvious!"

At least we have not had to read him fawning also over Josh Pastenr's passion & energy since any arguments that JP may have been a better hire than Miller are decomposed and in the grave.

I am very sorry to see Simon go... but I wish him the best.

These annual wholesale roster changes, whether with grad transfers in, one-&-dones, or transfers out, make college basketball a whole lot less fun for this fan.

It's what the sport has devolved into... and now we will have an entire offseason speculating how all our freshmen will be All-World. They won't be.

Harvey Specter wrote:I am very sorry to see Simon go... but I wish him the best.

These annual wholesale roster changes, whether with grad transfers in, one-&-dones, or transfers out, make college basketball a whole lot less fun for this fan.

It's what the sport has devolved into... and now we will have an entire offseason speculating how all our freshmen will be All-World. They won't be.

This! Agree 100%....lucky I was in school in the days of Kerr and Elliott....so I'm spoiled....Hate how the NBA has ruined the college game .

Hard to get really excited about any kid nowadays until the enter their junior year....always a waiting game to see who bolts.

Simon's transfer is in the interests of both the player and the program. But that's absolutely caused by annual reload approach made necessary by the NBA's one-year requirement. None of these 5-star talents should enter college basketball unless they intend to stick with it at least 3 years and then complete their degrees after. What if university faculty took on the NCAA to do away with the one-and-done phenomenon?

Recruiting the one-and-done's must be evaluated on a cost-benefit basis as with any strategic choice. A successful program requires a balance of short-term, "bluechip" players, and longer-term, contributing "role players"...

Possibly, the "costs" are beginning to outweigh the "benefits". It appears to me that Arizona, with 4-6 returning players from what most (overly-entitled) fans have considered to have been an "under-performing" team and season, may be on the brink of chaos. If fans are questioning the "chemistry" of this year's team, next year's group could easily be a more volatile and combustible mixture....

CSM could easily be more challenged with the incoming class than he was this season.

Longhorned wrote:Simon's transfer is in the interests of both the player and the program. But that's absolutely caused by annual reload approach made necessary by the NBA's one-year requirement. None of these 5-star talents should enter college basketball unless they intend to stick with it at least 3 years and then complete their degrees after. What if university faculty took on the NCAA to do away with the one-and-done phenomenon?

Yes please. Get to work. Pit stops should not be allowed.

Longhorned wrote:Simon's transfer is in the interests of both the player and the program. But that's absolutely caused by annual reload approach made necessary by the NBA's one-year requirement. None of these 5-star talents should enter college basketball unless they intend to stick with it at least 3 years and then complete their degrees after. What if university faculty took on the NCAA to do away with the one-and-done phenomenon?

I get preachy about it, but the first step is admitting that this hasn't included academics for about 30 years. This is a minor league, and it's fun.

The NBA is the entity that has the one and done rule, and it isn't for the benefit of colleges.

I never understood why the NBA Players Union isn't for delaying entry into the NBA for young players.

You would think the NBA Players Union would want to protect the current NBA players. Only 300 players in the NBA, and for every one and done coming in, someone has to go, usually an older veteran sitting on the end of the bench. Protect the current players who have been paying NBA union dues for years, instead of the young ones who haven't paid a dime.

Merkin wrote:I never understood why the NBA Players Union isn't for delaying entry into the NBA for young players.

You would think the NBA Players Union would want to protect the current NBA players. Only 300 players in the NBA, and for every one and done coming in, someone has to go, usually an older veteran sitting on the end of the bench. Protect the current players who have been paying NBA union dues for years, instead of the young ones who haven't paid a dime.

I agree, Merk. Not sure the owners see it this way, though. Some do, like Cuban. But most want the best possible talent, and sometimes that's an 18 yo not a 30-something.

Merkin wrote:I never understood why the NBA Players Union isn't for delaying entry into the NBA for young players.

You would think the NBA Players Union would want to protect the current NBA players. Only 300 players in the NBA, and for every one and done coming in, someone has to go, usually an older veteran sitting on the end of the bench. Protect the current players who have been paying NBA union dues for years, instead of the young ones who haven't paid a dime.

That rule is an owners proposition that the players union capitulated on.

Frankly, the real rule that drives most early entries never gets mentioned. It's the rookie salary scale. The first 3 years of a rookie's contract are fixed based on draft position, and the money is vastly below market value.

This creates two effects. First, the player wants that first three year clock to start ticking asap. Second, since the money is guaranteed, the player's incentive isn't to be ready out of college. The incentive is to be ready three years into the NBA, because that's when you can actuall make market value.

When there was no scale and a rookie could make 10 mil a year, players needed to be much more concerned about that first contract. Today, the first contract is an obstacle to overcome and no one cares if they're ready to make an impact, just that 3 years in they will be.

You would have to believe the union is having a hard time reaching a consensus or coming to a compromise. I don't know the exact answer, but I have heard multiple players talk about it being unfair, the whole age discrimination claim and "I am old enough to vote or go to war for my country, but not be a professional?" I've seen other guys say it isn't fair because some of these kids need the money. While I am sure there have been plenty of legitimate cases involving players trying to get money to care for a sick family member, or get them out of homes in dangerous areas, I'm sure there are plenty more who have used that as a justification but went out and spent the money recklessly up front.

I just don't get it, the NBA is a business. Businesses can decide minimum education requirements and hiring ages. Hell, most police departments require you to be 21 or older before you complete the police academy, and those are public service jobs. It is clearly in the NBA's best interest to make these kids spend another year in college. It is in colleges best interest to have these kids two years. It makes both games better. Playing in the NBA is not a RIGHT, it's a privilege. And I would argue it is in the best interest of society as well. Our government looks for creative ways to improve the number of citizens who attain post-high school degrees and looks for ways to raise these numbers in people of different races and/or lower socioeconomic backgrounds. It's only a small chunk, but it is something. You are halfway to a college degree, which was free, maybe you decide to stay two years to finish, or one more year and take courses in the offseason while you are playing in the league. Or when basketball doesn't work out, you can come back and finish fairly quickly. We want these guys to be pushed on the court, why cant we push them to better themselves with a college degree. We aren't forcing them to finish here, but strongly pushing in that direction.

All these players who are against it - they know tons of people who didn't make it in the league and are broke; who can't find a job in the real world now; who left early and got at most a cup of coffee in the league and were done; and those who threw away a free education to go undrafted. Different sport, but I had two high school teammates who took that leap right out of high school. Neither was ready for the real world after they never made it and are fortunate they married women who earned halfway decent salaries. I know plenty more who attended some college and flamed out before the pros and for whatever reason wont go back to school. They are in similar boats, and one is 34 and still living with his parents. I am honestly having a difficult time thinking of more than one guy who fell short who I would consider successful in the professional world, and really, part of that is the guy was able to jump right into his father's business when he was done playing ball. And then I have one buddy making in excess of $11 million a season right now. Not a single one of these guys faces the same obstacles and disadvantages that most of these NBA guys do in life. While the NBA guys have better odds, especially with a guaranteed 1st round contract, that money can go very fast.

pc in NM wrote:Recruiting the one-and-done's must be evaluated on a cost-benefit basis as with any strategic choice. A successful program requires a balance of short-term, "bluechip" players, and longer-term, contributing "role players"...

Absolutely.

Possibly, the "costs" are beginning to outweigh the "benefits".

I think it well could be possible, particularly for the guys that are ranked more like 15-40 who have been told all their life they're a one and done but who aren't really super talented enough to greatly effect the team they're on for that single year.

Now the guys that are in the top ten of a class probably are worth it because they can really effect the team for the one year they're there. The Aaron Gordons. The Stanley Johnsons. The others further down I think you really need to think about the cost/benefit relationship.

Not sure all, or even most of those 15-40 guys are told they are one and dones. Fully acknowledge they are gassed up by those around them, but I just don't think that's a reality. Maybe in this class there are quite a decent amount, but only because this class is absolutely load

We may quibble on the details, but the NCAA is getting bitch-slapped by the NBA and its interests. But the money pours in regardless, so colleges accept the beatings.

Then ESPN (with an NBA contract) takes it from there, turning all broadcasts into analyses of who's going to "the next level."

Freshman Focus!

Oh, then CBS plays along by bringing in the NBA analysts for the tournament games. Funny, how you don't see the NFL announcers during the college football playoffs.

NCAA hoops needs to regain its confidence that its product is good enough without the NBA link and hype.

Bye Simon, we hardly got to know ya.

Simon is going to St Johns

Good luck Justin in New York.

Sounds like a damn good fit.

I wonder at how much we would all enjoy college basketball if no future NBA players participated. After all, the number of college players who actually play in the NBA is a tiny little fraction of the whole, so what would we miss?

I for one, would rather watch a team full of four year players competing against similar, even if the quality of the game suffered a little.

Merkin wrote:I never understood why the NBA Players Union isn't for delaying entry into the NBA for young players.

You would think the NBA Players Union would want to protect the current NBA players. Only 300 players in the NBA, and for every one and done coming in, someone has to go, usually an older veteran sitting on the end of the bench. Protect the current players who have been paying NBA union dues for years, instead of the young ones who haven't paid a dime.

It's really irrelevant. If players were forced to stay in college for 2 or 3 or 4 years all that would happen is those same guys would come out every year only later. The only advantage might be until that first class caught up and was allowed to declare. But after having to stay in college longer they would be better players and even more likely to push out some NBA veteran.

Puerco wrote:I wonder at how much we would all enjoy college basketball if no future NBA players participated. After all, the number of college players who actually play in the NBA is a tiny little fraction of the whole, so what would we miss?

I for one, would rather watch a team full of four year players competing against similar, even if the quality of the game suffered a little.

I agree totally. Only way to tell if the quality would suffer. Try it and see. i.e. all teams have players who play together multiple years vs. one-and-done show-offs constantly learning to play together.

If nothing else, it would make for more continuity from the fans perspective and, perhaps, better team basketball.

Longhorned wrote:Sounds like a damn good fit.

A mediocre player for a mediocre team?

Justin Simon playing point guard for the Johnnies today.

Yeah, but only played 40 minutes and missed his triple double.

Looking at his stats, has 2 40 minute games, and one 1 39 minute game. Averages 35.4 minutes. Only one game has he played less than 30 minutes, and that was 29.

PPG RPG APG
10.6 7.9 4.8

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/cbk/pla ... ?id=131285" target="_blank