OT: One and done

[BoiledSteel]

Looks like the 'one and one' rule potentially is going to be gone: Link

What I find surprising is the college community is pushing for it. I would think the schools that frequently pull in the one and done's would be against it.

This would only make coaches like Painter a hot commodity with the track record of success and player development that he has.

Going to be interesting to watch this all unfold.

 

[M51]

Looks like the 'one and one' rule potentially is going to be gone: Link

What I find surprising is the college community is pushing for it. I would think the schools that frequently pull in the one and done's would be against it.

This would only make coaches like Painter a hot commodity with the track record of success and player development that he has.

Going to be interesting to watch this all unfold.

This will not help Painter or Purdue. The top 20 goes pro. Duke, Ky, Kansas, NC and other top tier programs will get 21 thru 60 or so. They will still get the top talent. Schools currently signing 100 to 150 will be looking at 120 to 170. So Purdue would most likely be signing fewer 4 star players.

 

[pharoutengineer]

I would guess this only hurts Purdue with respect to its ability to make Final Fours. Teams like Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Arizona, UNC etc will start to have more consistency in their rosters because they will have more multi year players while still getting the best talent available. I would think that only helps them in relation to everyone else and minimizes one of Purdue’s few somewhat consistent advantages: roster seniority.

Or perhaps with the top programs having more multi year players that means they have less slots to fill each season and more top talent is available than otherwise. Maybe it turns out to be a wash.

I know if I was a fan of Kentucky or Duke I would love this rule. It must be exhausting constantly having almost a completely new roster every year. I enjoy getting to know the players and watching their development, something you can’t do much of at the one and done factories.

 

[njm8845]

I would guess this only hurts Purdue with respect to its ability to make Final Fours. Teams like Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Arizona, UNC etc will start to have more consistency in their rosters because they will have more multi year players while still getting the best talent available. I would think that only helps them in relation to everyone else and minimizes one of Purdue’s few somewhat consistent advantages: roster seniority.

Or perhaps with the top programs having more multi year players that means they have less slots to fill each season and more top talent is available than otherwise. Maybe it turns out to be a wash.

I know if I was a fan of Kentucky or Duke I would love this rule. It must be exhausting constantly having almost a completely new roster every year. I enjoy getting to know the players and watching their development, something you can’t do much of at the one and done factories.

I disagree - I think this helps Purdue.

Currently there are a handful of players that are amazingly talented - and they are concentrated at 4 or so schools. Even if you assume those schools get the top players going forward, the disparity between them and the types of players Purdue gets will decrease. But I don't think the same four schools will pull talent like they've been doing. There's only 13 scholarships now, as opposed to having multiple one and dones per year.

Mainly I like this rule change because I think the NBA should not treat CBB like a minor league system. If kids want to pay, then let them play.

 

[BoiledSteel]

Or perhaps with the top programs having more multi year players that means they have less slots to fill each season and more top talent is available than otherwise.

This is what I think will happen as other schools will not be able to just dish out scholarships because a player may leave in a year, thus in theory spreading the talent around.

 

[boilerman101]

I think it may hurt the kids. He thinks he's the hottest thing. Doesn't get drafted. Oops, what're you gonna do now hotshot?

 

[FirstDownB]

I disagree - I think this helps Purdue.

Currently there are a handful of players that are amazingly talented - and they are concentrated at 4 or so schools. Even if you assume those schools get the top players going forward, the disparity between them and the types of players Purdue gets will decrease. But I don't think the same four schools will pull talent like they've been doing. There's only 13 scholarships now, as opposed to having multiple one and dones per year.

Mainly I like this rule change because I think the NBA should not treat CBB like a minor league system. If kids want to pay, then let them play.

I'm not sure if it would help or hurt Purdue with respect to other teams, but I agree with the assessment that the drop in talent from recruit #1 to recruit #50 is far greater than the drop from recruit #50 to recruit #100. But that talent drop will be offset by experience. Net effect on Purdue would probably be negligible, but I am on board with doing away with the 1-and-done rule solely based on principle.

 

[FirstDownB]

I think it may hurt the kids. He thinks he's the hottest thing. Doesn't get drafted. Oops, what're you gonna do now hotshot?

Hurting kids, i.e. giving an 18 year old adult the freedom to make that decision for himself. Kind of like signing up for military service or going into a great many other professions (including other sports) at the same age.

 

[Roeder]

Looks like the 'one and one' rule potentially is going to be gone: Link

What I find surprising is the college community is pushing for it. I would think the schools that frequently pull in the one and done's would be against it.

This would only make coaches like Painter a hot commodity with the track record of success and player development that he has.

Going to be interesting to watch this all unfold.

Most of these one and done kids will likely declare for the NBA draft the spring of their Sr year. Purdue will hopefully have their classes wrapped up by then and it will leave schools like UK and Duke scrambling for the few middle range guys that are left late in the process. It will be interesting to see if schools like UK and Duke have a change in philosophy.

 

[PU52Chevy]

I think people are forgetting about the academic side of things...…

I bet some of these one and done schools will find it pretty hard to hide kids grades and how to figure out how to actually get the kids to go to class and the grades to stay in school.

Not all cases but for some this will be interesting to see how they manage it.....

The rule should not hurt Purdue.....
.

 

[pharoutengineer]

Most of these one and done kids will likely declare for the NBA draft the spring of their Sr year. Purdue will hopefully have their classes wrapped up by then and it will leave schools like UK and Duke scrambling for the few middle range guys that are left late in the process. It will be interesting to see if schools like UK and Duke have a change in philosophy.

This is a good point and something I forgot.

 

[BoilerIron]

I think people are forgetting about the academic side of things...…

I bet some of these one and done schools will find it pretty hard to hide kids grades and how to figure out how to actually get the kids to go to class and the grades to stay in school.

Not all cases but for some this will be interesting to see how they manage it.....

The rule should not hurt Purdue.....
.

Who were the top schools prior to the one and done era? Duke, UNC, UK, Kansas, and Arizona.... They had no problem keeping players eligible back then. Why would it be any different now?

 

[mathboy]

Who were the top schools prior to the one and done era? Duke, UNC, UK, Kansas, and Arizona.... They had no problem keeping players eligible back then. Why would it be any different now?

In the past these factory schools just had to keep a kid eligible for 1 or 2 semesters for OAD players. Maybe 3 semesters if the kid went for a second season. Lots of introductory classes, lots of survey classes, and only a weak progression toward some sort of general studies degree. Now, with a kid staying for 4 years, real progress toward a degree, including upper level classes will be required to stay eligible. Unless these schools turn to North Carolina’s solution, and really cheat the kids out of their education.

 

[BoilerIron]

In the past these factory schools just had to keep a kid eligible for 1 or 2 semesters for OAD players. Maybe 3 semesters if the kid went for a second season. Lots of introductory classes, lots of survey classes, and only a weak progression toward some sort of general studies degree. Now, with a kid staying for 4 years, real progress toward a degree, including upper level classes will be required to stay eligible. Unless these schools turn to North Carolina’s solution, and really cheat the kids out of their education.

That's why I asked who the top schools were PRIOR to the OAD era. It's the exact same schools. Prior to 2006 (when players were allowed to go out of high school) the top teams were still Duke, UK, UNC, Arizona, UCLA, and Kansas.

 

[mathboy]

That's why I asked who the top schools were PRIOR to the OAD era. It's the exact same schools. Prior to 2006 (when players were allowed to go out of high school) the top teams were still Duke, UK, UNC, Arizona, UCLA, and Kansas.

Good point. Duke was probably better before falling into the OAD dumpster. UK was good but not great until Calipari took over and went almost exclusively to OAD. UNC was caught in academic fraud, so they don’t count. Arizona & UCLA were not all that great before OAD. Only Kansas meets my unqalified, amateur, poor-memory ideal of being great both before and after the OAD era.

This opinion will, of course, bring a heated discussion about the difference between “good” and “great”.

 

[BoilerIron]

Good point. Duke was probably better before falling into the OAD dumpster. UK was good but not great until Calipari took over and went almost exclusively to OAD. UNC was caught in academic fraud, so they don’t count. Arizona & UCLA were not all that great before OAD. Only Kansas meets my unqalified, amateur, poor-memory ideal of being great both before and after the OAD era.

This opinion will, of course, bring a heated discussion about the difference between “good” and “great”.

No heated discussion will be coming from me. Looking back at the Final Four teams prior to 06', each final 4 all the way back to 87' had at least one of the teams I mentioned and most had at least two of those teams. IMO that's a good way to determine the top tier teams prior to the OAD era. I dont see any reason that the same trend wont continue post OAD era.

The heated discussion would come if I were to point out that the available McDonald's All-americans are about to be significantly reduced... .

 

[BoilerAndy]

This will not help Painter or Purdue. The top 20 goes pro. Duke, Ky, Kansas, NC and other top tier programs will get 21 thru 60 or so. They will still get the top talent. Schools currently signing 100 to 150 will be looking at 120 to 170. So Purdue would most likely be signing fewer 4 star players.

Ah, but rating players outside the top 50 is much less reliable. Player #120 is oftentimes better than player #70. Just look at the different rating services. They all have the same Top 50, in different order, but they are still there. Outside of that, it depends on who has watched the players and who hasn't.