HurricaneU
American Patriot
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,932
I don't agree w/ you at all. How many guys that left high school and came straight to the NBA actually lived up to the hype? How many of those guys remained in the leauge past 5 yrs? How many one and dones have lived up to the hype?
Now compare that to the guys who either played professionally over in Europe since the age of 15 or the guys who stayed at least 2 years in college. Its not a coincidence guys like Donovan Mitchell and Dennis Smith Jr came NBA ready, while Lonzo Ball, D'Aaron Fox, Fultz, Josh Jackson, Malik Monk, Harry Giles, Tony Bradley all struggled. I'm sorry, but the NBA lost a lot of popularity during those baby sitting years. It was a **** poor product. It take 98% of these one and done players a min of 3 yrs to reach their NBA maturity, which coincides with the glory years of the NBA...guys staying in school 3 to 4 years.
Whether the product ultimately is better is both somewhat subjective but also irrelevant. Its the fair-market value of an individuals skills, talents and labor and whether they are able to capture that value at the time it may be at its highest.
I can happily concede any argument about of inferiority of product because that isn't really my argument. Im not arguing guys dont need developmental work. Im arguing that even with guys who dont develop and become stars in the NBA or NFL (again a somewhat subjective criteria) are being taken advantage of both in basketball and definitely football, by a system built and designed to deny them their highest and best return on their labor. And for the ones who did go directly from high school to NBA or played in Europe, still benefitted more than they would have had they went to a college.
Its the pareto principle. But my instincts tell me its even more unforgiving in the context of college sports; probably closer to 90/10.