ADVERTISEMENT

Does this tournament show a sign of a new era?

If this marks the new era, then the team that wins this year is the GOAT. History doesn't count.
 
another angle is, once the FBI investigation. The blood bloods went to shit, even not named.
I think it’ll show just how fragile the blue blood one and done’s are and I wonder if the respective fan bases will push for something different. I kind of can’t believe how bad the powerhouses were this year.
 
Is it as simple of not having summer, preseason exhibition, OOC games?

I talked with someone a few days ago about this. The usual top teams almost always rely on one and done freshmen and sophomores with a few upper classmen sprinkled in.

So all practices and games are important. Covid-19 knocked teams out 10-20 games and several months of practice and then they had a few months of limited contact practice.

It was a perfect scenario for experienced/older teams to take over.
 
When the NBA's CBA runs out in 2-3 years (likely 2), most people think the "1 year out of high school" rule will go away.
 
Will ppl start talking about since....

G-League, corona, transfer rules.

From my understanding, it's ok now to recruit players from other teams. Not just covid related, but from now on.
It's not a new era until Iowa wins the national championship.


So if a new era is what you're all itching for, then maybe you should stop f***ing beating Iowa...........

Thank you. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84
The OAD rule was bound to have an effect on the elite teams that heavily rely on such recruits. It’s a trend that started actually before the OAD rule took effect, as elite players have been leaving school early for decades now. While it used to be extremely rare for a double digit seed to reach the EE, it is not a major surprise anymore. It will be interesting to see the effects of the elimination of the OAD rule. If the NBA allows HSers to be drafted again, then I suspect a lot of elite players will skip college and even elite programs will be seeing more 3-4 year players.
 
We have seen a huge influx of "mid-majors" climbing to the top in the past twenty years. Nova, Gonzaga, etc etc. Although I'm a BIG fan, I think it is good for the sport.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84
When the NBA's CBA runs out in 2-3 years (likely 2), most people think the "1 year out of high school" rule will go away.

It already has...

NBA didn't like the previous rule because of Kwame Brown.
Wasn't just his fault because there were others

With the G League now the NBA can filter out kids a little better.

Like I have said we will start seeing more and more players in the G League. Then the NBA teams draft from the G League
 
High school kids who are not interested in school should be able to go pro straight away. If the NBA or NFL wants to risk a draft pick on an 18 year old, it should be allowed.
 
High school kids who are not interested in school should be able to go pro straight away. If the NBA or NFL wants to risk a draft pick on an 18 year old, it should be allowed.

They are able to....

But NBA teams learned last time that the system they had didn't work

So they built up the G League.

Dallas Mavericks drafted a kid who went crazy and was locked up in Parkland Hospital in Dallas.
 
Not bad considering there's over 300 of them........ ;)

Moral victory, for sure!

giphy.gif
 
That and MLBs ridiculous young player rules need to be fixed. If players are deemed ready for the show, let them play.
I like how MLB handles things...You can come right of HS...But, if you do not like your status, you can elect to go to college. Only downfall, is you now have to wait 3 seasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Villian07
I like how MLB handles things...You can come right of HS...But, if you do not like your status, you can elect to go to college. Only downfall, is you now have to wait 3 seasons.


MLB screws their young talent over with service time trash. Happens every year to the elite prospects that deserve to be on the roster. But teams are more interested in extra years of control.
 
MLB screws their young talent over with service time trash. Happens every year to the elite prospects that deserve to be on the roster. But teams are more interested in extra years of control.
I was speaking in terms of the draft...But you are right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Villian07
And shoot, how could I forget about Arkansas? 8 transfers on that team. Crazy. But, Musselman has always prioritized transfers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duckboy33
Honestly, it really does seem like recruiting transfers would give you a better return on investment. Unless you're a top 10-20 program, you have to invest A LOT of time in signing top 50-100 kids out of high school. It's a 2-year+ investment for most of those guys. Transfers are usually willing to commit within a month or so, sometimes sooner, after a coach makes the initial contact. And coaches can probably gauge a transfer better, seeing how they're already playing against collegiate athletes.
 
Honestly, it really does seem like recruiting transfers would give you a better return on investment. Unless you're a top 10-20 program, you have to invest A LOT of time in signing top 50-100 kids out of high school. It's a 2-year+ investment for most of those guys. Transfers are usually willing to commit within a month or so, sometimes sooner, after a coach makes the initial contact. And coaches can probably gauge a transfer better, seeing how they're already playing against collegiate athletes.

I'd say it's worth it even for top 10/20 programs. Unless you are bringing an epically loaded freshman class, you will probably need some talented upperclassman to win in March.
 
Transfers are the name of the game right now. Oregon's starting lineup only has one player that Oregon recruited out of high school.
So basically your win over Iowa doesn't count since you had to bring in transfers to get a team that could outscore a bunch of broken down, slow white guys?

Got it. That makes me feel a lot better now. And thanks for letting us take your spot in the Sweet 16 as well! :D
 
  • Haha
Reactions: duckboy33
Honestly, it really does seem like recruiting transfers would give you a better return on investment. Unless you're a top 10-20 program, you have to invest A LOT of time in signing top 50-100 kids out of high school. It's a 2-year+ investment for most of those guys. Transfers are usually willing to commit within a month or so, sometimes sooner, after a coach makes the initial contact. And coaches can probably gauge a transfer better, seeing how they're already playing against collegiate athletes.
I agree that transfers are easier to assess since they already have adjusted to the college game and they are obviously not approaching the game with an eye towards going pro ASAP. They generally more mentally and emotionally mature as well, Some of them are also benefitting from a change of scenery in that they might not have improved but for a different coaching perspective.
 
ADVERTISEMENT