Showing posts with label NCAA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NCAA. Show all posts

Friday, June 26, 2009

Maturity


And now, for something completely different.

Yesterday on ESPNews – “What’s with Scribe and that channel?”, you must be asking – Fran Fraschilla discussed the evolution of pre-draft scouting by NBA executives over the past decade. As he talked about the increased efforts and resources invested from team officials, the former St. John’s head coach then elaborated on the fundamental difference between international and American players.

For years, Fraschilla has said that international players have a greater maturity than their stateside counterparts. He believes that because they come from countries with tougher and lower standards of living, the internationals are far more appreciative of the chance to play in the NBA compared to American prep school and college kids who see a spot in the Association as a birthright.

He may certainly have a point as some of the best American players currently in the league are guys whose names we have heard about since at least their senior year in high school. The NBA is the end result of years of coddling, hyping and protecting these prodigies in order to have their names called by Commissioner David Stern in late June. However, Fraschilla – whether he was careful to not condemn or condone the American powers-that-be – left out another reason; the difference in basketball development here in the States compared to Europe and Asia.

Here in the States, we have relied on colleges as the minor leagues for the NBA. Whether or not the nation’s high schools and the NCAA have done a good job in being that free feeder system is up for debate (though truthfully, it’s been pretty bad these days), yet the system is an American construct only. Here, we ask our athletes to become the ideal Renaissance (wo)men; Academic and Athletic All-Americans who can juggle The Odyssey, a Spaulding and aid for a few underprivileged kids simultaneously.

Overseas, you have the choice early one to be an academic or an athlete. Players can go into basketball leagues as young as fourteen years of age, even becoming professional if a kid is deemed talented enough to run with a few grizzly veterans. There may not be much of a childhood for those who choose this route, but at least there is little interference and conflicts as there would be if both school and ball had to be balanced.

In a basketball sense, having the chance to play in a league with players of varying experience and styles seems to do more for the internationals than playing in a somewhat stymied league for young Americans. How those development styles translate on the court isn’t very easy to determine as players on either side succeed and fail at about the same clip, according to knowledgeable men like Fraschilla and others who have been around the game for some time.

Just observe the adjustment levels between some of your work or school colleagues. Some who have traveled the traditional path – graduating from an esteemed program of a major four-year college – may struggle in the first few months, or even years, of a job because real life differs greatly from the textbook. Some who had to work their way around to come to the company – transferring colleges or working immediately after high school, working in other industries, etc. – might perform very well in their professions because they were exposed to real-life challenges while their peers were still hitting the books.

No matter what, the beaten path is not a requirement for any player aspiring for the NBA life anymore. It’s an option on both sides as not only are American prep stars such as Jeremy Tyler following in Brandon Jennings’ footsteps but there are more international recruits in US colleges year after year.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Say What?!?!: A couple of weeks late, but best of luck to you, Epiphanny Prince. Even you have chosen the Jennings route. I love it!

Friday, April 24, 2009

Intrepid

For those who have been reading Scribe for a while, you are well aware that the NCAA is as close to a cuss word as there is on this blog. It’s not so much about the action as it about the politics surrounding the surface of play. There’s no question that as long as basketball and football continue to be the engine that drives the organization, the debate about compensation for its athletes beyond scholarships will rage on.

Yet, though it may not appear to be the case right now, the future of the NCAA hinges on a couple of intrepid kids.

Last year, it was Brandon Jennings who decided to jump across the pond – bypassing the NCAA in the process – to play professional basketball in Italy before offering his services to the NBA. Now, we have Jeremy Tyler, a 6-foot-11 prospect from San Diego, who has decided to take things to another level by forgoing his senior year in high school.

High school.

It appears that Jennings’ gamble, which was to join a league where he would be tested by seasoned pros and endure a more grueling schedule than even the top NCAA teams create, has paid off as he’s projected to be at least a middle first-round draft pick in June. While many believe that his decision was based on not performing well on the SATs in order to enroll at Arizona (a test is not a measure of someone’s aptitude, contrary to popular opinion), Jennings understood that he would be wasting time in playing against peers that he easily dominated or would toss aside in college. Having played numerous invitational games (high school and AAU) seemed to have been all the evidence Jennings to see that there would be little challenge to spend the mandatory one season away from prep school to play in the NCAA.

So, in the face of those whose extol the virtues of a ‘free education’ while pocketing money for the work of these athletic marketing representatives (which is what a student-athlete essentially is), Jennings essentially became an apprentice. He decided to build his craft in a foreign land among men who are playing for more than mere dreams, but for mere employment in an über-competitive industry.

Tyler would have been a lottery pick in the pre-age limit NBA. Where Jennings appears to be the best young American point guard not in the Association, skilled big men are coveted with as much fervor as finding reasons to jump on the Twitter bandwagon. Yet, deciding to skip his senior year in high school seems to be for similar reasons as Jennings; being a man among boys. Why go through another year of quadruple teams against kids nowhere near your size? Why deal with an eventual college coach who is going to work to only keep his job or look ahead for the big program?

Yet people will be up in arms about Tyler’s decision to skip the senior prom, the senior trip, the aptitude exams and missing out on a 400-karat high school ring from a mail-order catalogue. The thing is that Tyler understood that the NCAA isn’t the only organization that feeds off of young talents, but his high school as well.

He understood that in high school (including those AAU teams and basketball factory prep schools), there isn’t a foundation or even interest to cultivate more than a handful of talented kids. Much of the reason for the age limit in the Association is because when a bunch of random names threw their names in the hat, there were too many ‘raw’ prospects, unfinished products and unprepared youngsters who were pushed through the traditional channels too fast.

This isn’t to say that either Tyler or Jennings will become multiple All-Star selections and win NBA titles. It’s quite possible that both completely bomb out when they reach the NBA (next season for Jennings, 2011 for Tyler at least). Yet, it’s hard to get upset at two kids willing to take such drastic steps to get one step closer to making their dreams come true.

For all the histrionics about the one-and-done players who are apparently wasting a college’s resources by not being engaged in the classroom, just be happy that there are a couple of teen phenoms who don’t want to do the same to some high school.

Say What?!?!: Further commentary found here.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Sycophants

Color me curmudgeon, but I’m not infected with Madness anymore.

Not since Carmelo Anthony led Syracuse to the national championship in 2003 have I paid attention to the NCAA men’s basketball tournament from start to finish. While interest at that time was tepid at best, it has dropped to Dubya-like approval rating levels in the last six years.

In fact, this Scribe has watched a whopping total of thirty-five minutes of college basketball in the entire regular season.

It wasn’t always this way as for someone with a vested interest in professional sports, I was anxious to see who really had the talent to make it to the elite level. I wanted to see who would be grossly overhyped, overrated and overwhelmed when they arrived. I also wanted to unearth players that were not considered in the National Player of the Year race who would turn out to become solid, if not great pros. I studied the players with my own eyes as opposed drinking the Kool-Aid served up publicly or privately by the media and friends.

Yet, for every column, comment or conversation I have come across in regards to the collegiate game over the years, someone feels obliged to take a shot at the pros; specifically the NBA.

It’s something that has bothered me for quite some time for reasons too numerous to list. Yet at the core of this frustration are these tried-and-true exclamations:
  • There are too many teams in the NBA: The NBA features thirty teams, all made from buckets of what are the 500 best players in the known universe compared to 349 teams that consist of 95% Intramural All-Stars, 3% future collegiate assistant coaches and 2% that might get at least a Summer League invitation.
    And can you realistically believe that the hustle-for-cash expansion of Division I has been financially viable for every team?

  • They play with passion!: Ano unfair judgment that is made without knowing the individual’s psyche, routine and off-court life. Sure, there are pros out there who may not exude the telltale signs of passion; a lot of screaming and scowling, getting in people’s faces when game plans go awry, those head-in-hand moments as a senior realizes his athletic career ended on a buzzer-beater. Yet, if anyone besides media could ever witness a professional locker room in person after a close loss, you may discover that passion – like leadership, savvy and other intangibles we wax poetic about – isn’t always in full view of the public. In looking for the obvious and borderline-obnoxious signs (see Eric Devendorf), you’ll miss the more subtle and profound displays.

  • They’re more fundamentally sound than the pros: When you graduated from high school, were you more fundamentally sound than you were in college? For those who went to college, do you find that you are more fundamentally sound that you are now?
    Your answers should both be ‘no’. The idea that college players are better than the professionals because they “don’t dunk all over the place” is ludicrous. It’s ludicrous because when you are a professional at anything in life, the ivory tower ideals are continuously challenged and either supplemented or rejected with real-life experience.

  • It’s about the TEAM, not one player: If you’re sick of hearing about Dwayne Wade, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and the NBA’s other stars, think about this: when we suddenly fell in love with the sharpshooting Stephen Curry, did we take the time to learn the names of any other player from Davidson? Can anyone name someone on the snubbed St. Mary’s team besides Patty Mills? Who notched up assists for Gonzaga when Adam Morrison shot the lights out of Western region arenas at tourney time? Take your time in answering.

  • (My favorite) They play harder than the pros!: Really?!?! While there are certainly folks in this world who loaf through their days, one of the most unfair things we do as a society is to question someone’s work ethic from afar.
    When you’re a professional – especially one who had to fight amongst many others to earn a coveted job – your livelihood is at stake with every key stroke, every presentation, every brick laid and every mid-range jump shot taken. You improve because of one or more of the following: A) you enjoy/need that income, B) you see something that can be improved and need to correct it, C) being in the company of like-minded and/or skilled individuals breeds healthy competition and greater production or D) there are other like-minded and/or skilled individuals who will take your spot if you are unable to perform.
You have to understand again that I once loved the college game. As a young child, I watched both men and women’s (that’s right, equal opportunity viewing) amateur games just about as much as the professionals; in reality, it was as much as a non-cable household could watch sports. As I grew older and cable finally arrived at the Clinkscales’ doorstep, I discovered a gluttonous serving of all levels of the games I loved.

In particular, it was basketball that gained much more of my attention as I would be able to see some of the best teams and players from all corners of the country. While having an athletic program was not a consideration for my choice of college – Babson College is a Division III school, but actually quite good – I have a healthy respect for the school-wide camaraderie and pride a successful one creates for the student body and alumni. Some of the larger schools I was accepted to would have provided such experiences; experiences that admittedly would have kept my interest in the ‘old college try’ far stronger than it is today.

Yet, the continued claims of integrity by NCAA sycophants at the expense of the NBA and its fans, no matter how false and absurd, have weathered this soul. They truly believe that because their athletes are not (legally) paid that the virtues of the game show themselves basket after basket. They truly believe that the money professionals earn makes every play less meaningful and less aesthetically pleasing. They believe that the control wielded by the coaches - men who may lead amateurs, but have no qualms with parading down the sidelines in thousand-dollar designer suits – keeps the game of basketball pure and uncompromised.

Why NCAA basketball fans assail on their NBA counterparts is beyond me. The NBA fan – one who certainly is aware of the league’s perception issues and criticisms – is one who has a great respect for the game. That respect, more often than not, is shunned by their collegiate partners because a majority of those in the NCAA camp can’t move beyond the fact that a select group of players are handsomely compensated to display their talents and passions to the world.

So to everyone consumed by this year’s tournament, enjoy yourselves. This is your time to shine in the spotlight and there’s no doubt that one player or one team will provide an everlasting memory for someone in the masses. Yet, the next time you say to yourself that “this is why I hate the NBA”, consider this comment from today’s op-ed from the New York Times’ Timothy Egan, who extolled the ‘virtues’ of the NCAA tourney:
“Spare us the poetic waxing and shilling for a hypocritical sport that is a huge cashcow for everyone except the players, unless they cheat.”

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Explain

Because the new national pasttime these days seems to be picking at everything not football or baseball (*cough*, the NBA, *cough, cough*), the recent commentary on the league's economic challeneges is interesting, to say the least.

Bill Simmons of ESPN.com wrote an article that has since made the rounds by way of seemingly paraphrased articles from the Wall Street Journal and of blogs such as Friend of Scribe, Sports Media Watch. Now, you can take Simmons' words with a grain of salt (kosher or not is up to you), along with many others. Yet, in reading the news about the league, NBA fans have come to expect the "this is why I don't watch the NBA" legion to make themselves known. In terms of the current economic malaise, it seems that the league cannot get a favorable shake, even with a rise in merchandise sales, television ratings and popularity in many markets.

While reading the comments on various forums, I can't help but to wonder has anyone pro- or anti-NBA asked this one question: why do professional leagues such as the NBA and NHL (though the latter is understandable in some ways) get slammed for expansion when the NCAA has been guilty of such over the past decade?

In fact, why doesn't the NCAA get slammed for any of the business decisions that, despite the amateur status of the players, are not uncommon from the pros?

There are thousands of people - even some of you who come across Scribe - who are unabashed college sports fans who have varying interests in the professional level. Unfortunately, there is a group out there who love to go out of their way to assert an arrogance that is unbefitting of the college sports fan base as a whole. They go out of their way to slam not just the NBA, but anything that does not exemplify the virtues that their game represents. The critiques are far too long to chonicle here and to be honest, most of them are so ignorant and absurd, your IQ will plummet instantly.

There are nearly 350 basketball and 120 football programs in Division 1 sports. All of the arguments people make about the dilution of talent in the pros is exactly what has gone on in the NCAA realm for years. And before anyone mentions the fact that these are amateurs, advertisers pour dollars in as if they are savvy and headline-grabbing vets in the pros.

Yet, it's the pros that are overreaching and are in dire straights? Please explain.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Crimson

Your school's men's basketball program has never won a conference championship.

Your team hasn't played in the NCAA tournament since Harry Truman was President of the United States.

Your arena is prehistoric (despite refurbishments) compared to the more modern amenities across campuses across the nation.

Your team suddenly has the most talented recruiting class in the conference's history thanks to the program's first-year head coach, whose experience extends to the Big Ten and the Big East.

You're... these guys?


Has the nation's "smartest" school gone all athletic on us? According to this New York Times article (written by Pete Thamel and Adam Himmelsbach), it looks as if Crimson are now trying to play in the big-time college athletic arena by lowering their already high academic standards and bending NCAA rules - stop laughing - to admit the best available talents.

Which begs the question: What does this do for Harvard?

Thoughts?

Monday, January 7, 2008

Forward (IV)

So this series may go beyond January 8th.

College basketball: Are we ever going to keep our superstars? The Florida Gators deserved all of the accolades and press bestowed upon them for being the best team in college basketball over the past two years.

Okay, let’s rewind that.

The Florida Gators are far from worthy of all the accolades and press besto…

Wait. One more time.

The Florida Gators… well, they’re the defending champs. There’s nothing more to say about them at the moment.

During the run to their second title in as many years, head coach Billy Donovan had been courted by the University of Kentucky to replace Tubby Smith. At the time, Donovan said that he wanted to remain in Florida. And he did. He proceeded to accept an offer to become the head coach of the NBA’s Orlando Magic. No one could fathom why he would leave Gainesville, but the idea of meeting the next challenge may have been too hard to pass up. And it’s also a little difficult to say no to a five-year, $27.5 million contract and the prospect of coaching Dwight Howard.

There were folks who looked at the success rate of college coaches coming into the NBA and found that history was not on Donovan’s side. Maybe that played a role in his sudden change of heart. Maybe what he really hoped for were big bucks from UF. Who knows? Either way, he was an NBA coach for five days. It was a costly, controversial and quite honestly, flaky way back to the college game. Whether he flipped the script because he loved the collegiate ranks more or he was trying to get UF to give him the world can be debated forever and a day. Yet, before signing with the Magic, Donovan was the fifth star to have left a back-to-back national champion. When he returned after five days, he must have realized that Joakim Noah, Al Horford, Corey Brewer and Taurean Green were not coming back with him.

Add the names of Greg Oden, Kevin Durant, Jeff Green, Acie Law IV, Alando Tucker and Glen Davis and it was clear to see that the Gators were not the only program losing big name players.

It happens every year, of course. College basketball loses players because of the pros; be it the NBA for the more prominent players or international leagues for the lesser known. If you’re a major player and you’re in demand, your options become more lucrative and the opportunities are more challenging. Yet, there is an influx of freshmen and transfers that hit the campus shortly after the departed become pros. There’s a new group to fawn over, hype and pray for their health so that there is a March Madness run in the near future. As all media for a sport, they begin the hype machine for certain players with out of sight skills or humble beginnings to reach the national stage. When college didn’t have a chance to lose out on these potential phenoms because they aspired for the NBA Draft, the issue became a ‘pandemic’ for the game.

In 2005, David Stern threw the NCAA a bone – while trying to protect his league from unrefined high school players – by instituting an age limit for draft eligibility. Potential draftees have to be at least nineteen years of age and at least one year removed from high school. While the player can still skip college and play in a non-NBA affiliated pro league for a year, the rule has compelled players to go to college for at least one year. This has given the NCAA some prominent young talents for the first time in years, yet it has also forced a bigger recruiting dilemma than ever before. Desperation from agents and NBA scouts in the past were tempered by the fact that no matter how many teams showed an interest, the player could not choose where he would go. College coaches may have limited communications – don’t laugh – but there is no limit to the amount of schools that beg for a player’s talents. Could you imagine how many coaches went for Derrick Rose, O.J. Mayo and Michael Beasley?

The pressures of being a college coach in today’s sports climate are enormous. Every program wants to win now and beat the rival, no matter what. If neither are achieved within three or four years – before a recruiting class has even graduated – the coach gets canned, despite how irrational it is for 300+ Division I schools to dream of one national title. Getting several solid players and allowing them to develop was a concept that had gone out the window years ago, so grabbing the ‘can’t miss’ kid adds more pressure for the coach. Sure, there is a tremendous financial windfall for the school and coach if the player comes to his school and he catapults the team to the Big Dance. Case in point; last year’s Texas Longhorns with Kevin Durant and this year’s USC Trojans with Mayo.

Durant and Ohio State’s Oden were the first collegiate superstars in the age-limit era… and they still bolted. Durant is trying to give life to a Seattle SuperSonics franchise that may leave the Pacific Northwest. Oden is rehabbing after shutting down his rookie campaign for Portland with microfracture surgery. They were not the only one-and-done players in the college ranks last year: Daequon Cook & Mike Conley, Jr. (also Ohio State), Brandan Wright (North Carolina), Javaris Critterton & Thaddeus Young (Georgia Tech) and Spencer Hawes (Washington). Yes, some NBA media highlighted that fourteen of the selected players in the first round were juniors and seniors, yet for half of the remaining players to have been freshman just go to show that the concept of the college superstar is fleeting.

Those freshmen were much of the reason why college basketball enjoyed a boost of popularity last year. Yet, with so many departures at once, the ‘problem’ has not been solved. Originally, Stern wanted a two-year limit while Billy Hunter and the Players’ Union fought against the limit. When the two sides passed a new collective bargaining agreement in 2005, the one-year compromise was believed to have been one of the critical deal breakers. Some in the college ranks want the Association to revisit the rule and Stern may not hesitate to bring the issue to the owners and players’ union once more. Somehow, you can get the feeling that the NCAA is asking the NBA to solve its problem for them as opposed to being proactive about retaining their student-athletes. With the CBA not expiring until 2011, it may take a while for the rule to be amended (assuming both sides even agree to re-open the CBA to make the change). So what will NCAA president Myles Brand and the powers-that-be do in the meantime should be given greater attention than ever before.

Will the NCAA accept that college is going to be a layover en route to the NBA for some talented freshmen? Will they remedy the situation by offering to pay players for performance (which is a long held reason for some of the early departures)? Will they come up with any non-academic anecdote that forces players to stay on campus in order to remain on the team? After Rose, Mayo and Beasley leave for the pros – yes, after – these questions will sure come to the surface before the next crop of freshmen head for orientation this fall.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Basics

If there was one purpose to fufill on this blog outside of entertaining a different train of thought, it would be to better explain the games we watch, discuss and attend to anyone of all interest levels. From the seemingly disinterested to the irrationally obsessive, there is a general lack of fundamental understanding of how players perform and what to look for in their performances. Personally, it drives me up a wall. Professionally, it's a perfect opportunity.

Slowly, this blog (and future projects) will evolve not only as a source of commentary and humor about sports, but hopefully 'sports for not-so-keen-folk' (I think "For Dummies" has been used). Below is an list of links that will direct you to websites that explain the purpose of each sport. Even us scribes can relearn a thing or two such as what exactly a team rebound is or the point of icing. And as for fantasy sports: if you learn the real game, you can learn fantasy, no matter what guides and 'gurus' tell you.

This list will also appear on the right as 'Basics' becomes archived. Yes, you could Google or find the Wiki of each sport, but why would you need to if you can find it in one place?

Basketball:

  • Wiki
  • The NBA created Hoopedia, a great one-stop source to discover the league's history. For Rules, scroll down to Basketball 101.
  • When it's time for that office pool, know why people get blue in the face in exhausting excitement or red in the face in unfiltered anger about the selection process. Welcome to the NCAA.

Baseball:

  • Wiki
  • Major League Baseball goes back to the Roman Empire... well, considering its deep-rooted, storied and controversial history, it might as well have been played by Julius Caesar himself.
  • Unlike basketball and football - and even hockey in some places - college baseball does not have the national or regional attention that it should, but major talents still come from these ranks.
  • Unlike basketball and football, the minor leagues are a big deal in many places across the US of A. Major League Baseball teams own a majority of these teams or have an affiliation with them, but there are some independents.

(American) Football:

Hockey:

Soccer/Football/Futbol:

Tennis: