AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Ivan Rabb returning to Cal - might have been lottery pick
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
why?
Perhaps he is getting paid... To return to Cal for another season
Maybe his draft grade wasn't as good as many people think, but... man, it's tough to see somebody pass up money like that. We've all seen cautionary tales like this before- as much as I appreciated what Richard Roby gave the Buffs, he would have been much better off if he had left after his freshman year, or then his sophomore year, or even his junior year. I hope the same thing doesn't happen to Rabb.
Drug test?
Heard that's been a common reason to stay in. Lack of prep and planning can mean a predrsft positive leaving little option but to return smarter.
Heard that's been a common reason to stay in. Lack of prep and planning can mean a predrsft positive leaving little option but to return smarter.
Hoops Fan
Well-Known Member
Must be the "stipend"
dyemeduke
Well-Known Member
I agree that if you think you're a lottery pick (or even guaranteed 1st rounder), you should at least go through the evaluation process before pulling your name out. However, I really don't think Rabb is worth a lottery selection at this point, in spite of what mock drafts may have him at (personally, I thought he was one of the more disappointing freshmen out there). He must have gotten feedback that he's valued lower than what he wants, so he's betting on himself. He probably sees himself as a potential top 10 or higher pick, and thinks with an extra year of maturity and development, he can increase his stock. The only problem is... ...next year's group of incoming freshmen is on paper better than this recent year's college freshmen.
NCAA and NBA need to work together to stop the currently idiotic mess of one-and-dones. Let them play out of HS or force them to get multiple years of college education...
NCAA and NBA need to work together to stop the currently idiotic mess of one-and-dones. Let them play out of HS or force them to get multiple years of college education...
STRONGLY disagree. I hate the baseball rule that people keep suggesting. All that does is punish kids like Alec Burks who blossom. It's absolutely ridiculous that there could be a rule that would have forced Alec to come back for another year - potentially costing him money and his health in the process. My favorite are the people who argue that "coaches should be able to plan on having a kid for a period of time". Well, let's get rid of transfers then. And injuries, because those could cause things the coaches don't expect. And while we're at it, the coaches are no longer allowed to leave for another job. Hypocrites.
If anything, I think the stupid 1 year rule should go away. The NBA and NCAA have no rights deciding when a kid can start his career.
I'm with Goose here.
What the NBA needs to do is make a stronger commitment to the D League and continue to strengthen the information they are able to give to prospects before they've hired an agent.
If someone is good enough to play basketball professionally, he should be able to earn a living. It shouldn't matter if he is an 18 year old who just finished HS, or a college frosh/soph/junior/senior.
We're not improving the college game if we force people who don't want to be there to risk injury and future livelihood to continue playing amateur hoops. That's ridiculous.
But if this market opens up the way it should, then I also want to see some sorts of protections that keep the agents and financial arrangements out of the high schools and AAU programs. It's bad now and would get a lot worse if there wasn't a 1-year removed from HS requirement.
Last edited:
Agreed and, for me, I'm not even opposed to kids going straight from HS to the NBA, if they're good enough. Why should anyone be able to dictate an 18 year old going to make money to support themselves or their families?
dyemeduke
Well-Known Member
Come on though Goose, Burks is not even a great example, as he left after his Soph year (yes, he COULD have left after Fr season, but I personally do not think he would have been guaranteed 1st rd). How many guys that become one-and-dones are surprises? It may have happened, but I can't think of one LEGIT surprise. Even if there are some players that I'm just not thinking of, you do have to concede that most kids do not develop from outside top 50 HS to an NBA 1st rounder after one season in college.
With that said, I see you say that the one year rule should go away, which we agree on, but if a kid decides to go to college, he should attend class. College sports overall has diminished the ultimate purpose of higher education, and the one-year rule is a prime example of kids not really having to go to school. Forcing kids that forego the NBA after HS into two years at least provides a stronger veil of academics. It's not about making the college game stronger (although that would be nice), it's about trying to show some integrity for higher education.
No, making kids play at least two years of bball is not a solvent that washes away college sports' problems with academics. But it is a start, cleaning up one of the more obvious farces in that area.
I do agree that pro sports needs to contribute more to their minor leagues, whether it be the D league or college sports. Some colleges have lost their way and focus - educating our youth should be the primary mission. The one-and-done rule, along with many other examples (e.g. UNC scandal, which probably happens many other places), mock this mission.
With that said, I see you say that the one year rule should go away, which we agree on, but if a kid decides to go to college, he should attend class. College sports overall has diminished the ultimate purpose of higher education, and the one-year rule is a prime example of kids not really having to go to school. Forcing kids that forego the NBA after HS into two years at least provides a stronger veil of academics. It's not about making the college game stronger (although that would be nice), it's about trying to show some integrity for higher education.
No, making kids play at least two years of bball is not a solvent that washes away college sports' problems with academics. But it is a start, cleaning up one of the more obvious farces in that area.
I do agree that pro sports needs to contribute more to their minor leagues, whether it be the D league or college sports. Some colleges have lost their way and focus - educating our youth should be the primary mission. The one-and-done rule, along with many other examples (e.g. UNC scandal, which probably happens many other places), mock this mission.
Rafael Araujo, Jarvis Hayes, Nik Stauskus, Elfrid Payton, Victor Oladipo and Alex Len are all examples of guys who came out of nowhere after a year in college to become a lottery pick. Most kids don't develop from outside the top 50 to NBA 1st rounder in one year. I agree. But why should those kids be punished because it's not "the norm"?
To the bold - why? And I'm not being a jackass, but why? I'm tired of this being applied to athletes, but everyone else can **** off if they want and it's fine. I was a music major. I had a scholarship. I had to go to class. But if in March of my frosh year Branford Marsalis wanted to hire me to play with him, not only would no one stop me and worry about the sanctity of academics, they would praise me and CU would use that in advertisements for the music school. So what's the difference?
I'm sorry, I'm tired of the double edged sword when it comes to athletics. The NBA and the NCAA are singlehandedly costing families money because of their bull**** holier than thou rules and I'm tired of it.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
I believe an employing entity can impose hiring and employment standards and requirements, providing those standards/requirements ensure fairness in selection, safety of individuals, and/or some expectation of production.
If the nba was doing this from a physical development stand point (like the nfl), that rule would be acceptable. Yes, I know there are individuals who are physical exceptions, like Kobe or Moses Malone. Most aren't, however.
But I truly believe the nba has this rule simply because of the difficulty, money, time, and people required to effectively scout the hs level athletes.
If the nba was doing this from a physical development stand point (like the nfl), that rule would be acceptable. Yes, I know there are individuals who are physical exceptions, like Kobe or Moses Malone. Most aren't, however.
But I truly believe the nba has this rule simply because of the difficulty, money, time, and people required to effectively scout the hs level athletes.
dyemeduke
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the examples - knew you'd come up with somebody. I can't speak of Araujo, Hayes, and Payton, but I definitely do not think Stauskas and Oladipo would have been drafted 1st round after their freshman seasons. Len may have, but only because his size and potential. I don't recall him being spectacular his freshman season...but my memory could very well be flawed. Payton also wasn't a one-and-done (I admit I had to look that one up). Either way, you're right in showing me examples that I couldn't think of - I'm sure more exist. However, no law is going to satisfy every single case available. There will always be exceptions, and if the law is clearly beneficial overall, then it's existence is still justified in my opinion.
Of course, that's the crux of our disagreement though - you don't feel the law is beneficial overall due to athletes being unjustly punished. I argue that upholding the academic mission as the primary focus of colleges makes the law good. Yes, I do agree that the NBA and NCAA are hurting families, so let kids out of HS go if they're able. Have the NBA invest more in the D league to make their professional game and league better. Will there be the occasional kid that explodes onto the scene as a freshman and be worthy of a lottery selection - sure, likely even if rarely. Again though, I don't think outliers should force the general rule. I'm sure there's some method using insurance to protect the kids (no, haven't fully developed this thought).
Yes, I agree...there's a dichotomy to the way I'm approaching athletes and general professions. I knew a kid in HS that didn't go to college and worked as a programmer, because he was that talented. Nobody counseled him that he should consider going to school for two years minimum. I also knew a Boettcher Scholar in HS that went to college, and partied his ass off his freshman year. His scholarship was revoked, and while I don't know what came of him, I doubt that companies were still lining up to hire him. What's the difference - the difference is the spotlight put on the athletes, highlighting their actions as they become more norm. They currently are forced to go to school when some don't want to or see any benefit of going, become celebrities while there, and then leave. This is all fine, except for the fact how education under the one-and-done rule is mostly lost. If there were a high frequency of kids under full music scholarships, celebrated on campus, playing for music programs that act as minor leagues for major recording labels...I'd argue the same. Don't go to school - sign with the record label instead of going to school after HS or middle school or whenever. If you choose school though, go to school.
BuffG
Well-Known Member
Top 50 is too big of a range for a surprise 1-and-done. Normally, only top 10 kids are projected as being potential 1-and-done. Recent players that went from not being on anyone's 1st rd mock drafts before college to lottery picks after frosh season: D'angelo Russell (Rivals #18 to #2 pick), Devin Booker (Rivals #29 to #13 pick), Joel Embiid (Rivals #25 to #3 pick), Zach Lavine (Rivals #44 to #13 pick).
The NBA is making progress by allowing kids to test the draft w/o an agent. I'd like to see HS kids who are considered unanimous top 5 picks be allowed to go straight to the pros. Prior to 1-and-done, the system was an even bigger s**t show. If we want to keep college hoops to its relative level of quality then there has to be compromise with the NBA. Otherwise, the nuclear option is for the NBA to have sophisticated youth systems like Euro soccer clubs which would kill high-major college hoops, the draft, & most of the leaches following around teenage kids.
Buffenuf
massive tool
Feds have child labor laws that are a joke, so there is no "right" involved. (Why should a kid who wants to earn money for college at 14-15 be prevented from doing so?)
So what's wrong with a 2 yr. baseball type rule for basketball? Seems a decent compromise between the joke of "one and done" and the baseball rule which works well for baseball, but does seem harsh for basketball. Or a baseball-type rule (3 yrs) with mandatory NCAA paid-for $2 million insurance against injury in the third year? That way NCAA pays for the benefit of having a great player available for its purposes.