[QUOTE=ninerfan55;435965]im not saying tell every player that but he can play more here than at kentucky.[/QUOTE]
He’ll be seen more at Kentucky, and because it is a BCS school, he’ll get the nod over more times than not if some choice comes down to him and some other kid from a non BCS school. I’m not saying it is wrong or right, but that is what these kids are looking at. This is also the perception of most of the general public, so when most of the kids have a choice between a Kentucky and Charlotte, all the people in their ear are telling him to choose Kentucky.
[QUOTE=ice_cold49er;435967]He’ll be seen more at Kentucky, and because it is a BCS school, he’ll get the nod over more times than not if some choice comes down to him and some other kid from a non BCS school. I’m not saying it is wrong or right, but that is what these kids are looking at. This is also the perception of most of the general public, so when most of the kids have a choice between a Kentucky and Charlotte, all the people in their ear are telling him to choose Kentucky.[/QUOTE]
So if Beasley comes here and dominates, he’s not a top 3 pick b/c of our conference affiliation?
I doubt pro scouts could not care less about where someone went to school. It’s more of a kid wanting to be on the bigger stage and on TV. Plus the hangers-on get in the kids’ ears to tell them to go to the big schools.
Don’t forget, lots of High School kids go way high based on upside alone.
[QUOTE=hootie;435972]I doubt pro scouts could not care less about where someone went to school. It’s more of a kid wanting to be on the bigger stage and on TV. Plus the hangers-on get in the kids’ ears to tell them to go to the big schools.
Don’t forget, lots of High School kids go way high based on upside alone.[/QUOTE] Probably more important for the fringe guys, who may or may not be seen by the scouts if they’re not on t.v. much, at least enough to get some attention, get invited to a few camps, etc. Lottery guys like Beasley are going to get seen no matter what, though they probably get a better shoe deal (and better under-the-table money, wink wink) if they dominate in a big-time conference.
There is also a flip side to the playing time argument, and that is whether defenses will be keying on the player depending on talent around them. That said, I’m often surprised guys aren’t savvier about who’s ahead of them on the depth chart. They should go where they have the highest chance of success whether they develop into all-stars or just decent players.
Problem is, most of these guys have had people whispering in their ears how great they are, they become super confident and think they’re unbeatable, underestimate the jump in competition, and so they make high-risk, high-reward decisions about where to play. To make it worse, some fringe guys make it against those odds, so it holds out hope for the rest that they too can achieve the dream, even if most don’t.
Most of these players want to play with the best of the best and have a chance to be the best of those players. Not the best of a bunch of guys they know they can likely dominate. It’s about competition and succeeding at it.
I’ll admit there are some fringe guys who’d probably be better served to goto an A-10 or C-USA school, but this kid isn’t going to be one of them.
[QUOTE=moss2k;435968]So if Beasley comes here and dominates, he’s not a top 3 pick b/c of our conference affiliation?[/QUOTE]
I believe he is still a top 3 pick, but I feel that the kids think it is easier to be a top 3 pick coming out of most BCS schools than it is coming out of Charlotte. I do also think this is somewhat true. If you have player A and player B who both play the same position, with A having a slightly better season than B, and player A came from Charlotte and player B came from Kentucky, when it comes to the players being ranked player B will usually get the edge over player A just because he went to Kentucky.
Is it the proper thing to do? Probably not, but it is how things are perceived by the media, and therefore the kids being recruited.
[QUOTE=ice_cold49er;435990]I believe he is still a top 3 pick, but I feel that the kids think it is easier to be a top 3 pick coming out of most BCS schools than it is coming out of Charlotte. I do also think this is somewhat true. If you have player A and player B who both play the same position, with A having a slightly better season than B, and player A came from Charlotte and player B came from Kentucky, when it comes to the players being ranked player B will usually get the edge over player A just because he went to Kentucky.
Is it the proper thing to do? Probably not, but it is how things are perceived by the media, and therefore the kids being recruited.[/QUOTE]
So if you are the 13th pick in the second round is it better to come from Charlotte where you put up big numbers and were the man, or Kentucky where you did not start your freshman year and had to split points with other players who also had NBA hopes?
[QUOTE=Nugget;435996]So if you are the 13th pick in the second round is it better to come from Charlotte where you put up big numbers and were the man, or Kentucky where you did not start your freshman year and had to split points with other players who also had NBA hopes?[/QUOTE]
I am more talking about players with comparable stats. If you put up big numbers here at Charlotte versus mid-level numbers at Kentucky, I would hope the Charlotte player would get the nod. Unfortunately, there are still times where the BCS school player would still get a look before the quality player from the A-10. How many times have you seen a guy get drafted from an ACC school and you said to yourself “heck, he wasn’t even that good in college, how did he get drafted?”.
Like usual, I can see both sides of the argument. If you’re the best of the best, and go BCS, it could be easier to get exposed as not being as good as billed. Shavlik Randolph comes to mind. Had he gone to Gonzaga he may have been Adam Morrison. Similar for Ronald Curry, Quentin Thomas, Sean Dockery, Josh McRoberts. I think it would have been interesting to see a Curry or Dockery at say, Xavier.
But, if you do go BCS and prove your worth, then clearly that should help your stock status.
Remember guys, the approach to the NBA game is totally different from the college game. That’s why Hansbrough doesn’t go in the top 5. I promise you, the only reason NBA scouts watch college games is to evaluate upside.
That’s why Rodney went so high. If he had worked his a$$ off, he coulda been a player. Instead, he cashed his 9 Mill check and was off to float through the Euro leagues.
There are big misses every year from the early entries, lots of big men that teams hope fan out and don’t. The list is huge- Oliwakandi and list goes on and on.
Pay attention sometimes to Monday Night Football, it’s the same thing. Count how many NFL starters come from non-BCS schools. Some weeks it’s darn near half. Pros really don’t care that much about college guy coaches opinions. They go on combines as much as anything.
[QUOTE=Normmm;436144]But, if you do go BCS and prove your worth, then clearly that should help your stock status.[/QUOTE]
Should, maybe. It sounds plausible. But I don’t want to agree.
I’m thinking of Eddie Basden. Are you telling me he’d have been wiser to’ve gone the ACC route? What about Henry Williams? Would he’ve gone in the first round had he chosen IU over us?
I don’t see it. (There’s probably a study on this.)
[QUOTE=anipalcraig;436621]Should, maybe. It sounds plausible. But I don’t want to agree.
I’m thinking of Eddie Basden. Are you telling me he’d have been wiser to’ve gone the ACC route? What about Henry Williams? Would he’ve gone in the first round had he chosen IU over us?
I don’t see it. (There’s probably a study on this.)
What about Chris Wright or Larry Sanders?[/QUOTE]
That’s sort of what I’m saying. And of course everybody’s different. But basically I was trying to say that if you’re a 6’7" guy on a BCS league team and average 15 ppg, it’s going to be perceived as a more proven player than if you’re a 6’7" guy in the MAC, that averaged 15 ppg.
But it is a tough call. Who knows if a player like Eddie was allowed to develop more by coming to Charlotte than if he had gone to a BCS league team.
Same deal for Henry. I’m not sure if he would have developed more at IU or not. But I do believe if he had gone to IU, and averaged the same #s that he averaged at Charlotte, he would have definitely gotten more looks and exposure.
I’ve even thought about that more with Withers and Demarco. I can’t help but think if either of those guys had gone to a BCS school they would have definitely been drafted.
[QUOTE=hootie;436527]
Pay attention sometimes to Monday Night Football, it’s the same thing. Count how many NFL starters come from non-BCS schools. Some weeks it’s darn near half. Pros really don’t care that much about college guy coaches opinions. They go on combines as much as anything.[/QUOTE]
I see what you’re saying. But I think football is a little different because of the size of the roster. In the NBA I would say 80% of NBA rosters are made up of BCS league players. By that I mean of the players who do to go to college, not including international players or players who left straight from HS.
[QUOTE=Iron9er;436631]As I’m sure you are aware, Henry was a 2nd round pick.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I watched the whole draft that year. I HATED seeing Lee Mayberry get taken in the first and Henry late in the 2nd. (edit: 44th overall)
That right there is an example which would heavily support a pro BCS argument. Then again Krzyzewski might deserve some blame, having given Mayberry far too many of Henry’s minutes on the US National Team, not to mention the starting role. But that didn’t make sense to me either, Henry being the superior player far and away, which can not be questioned.
[QUOTE=Normmm;436627]That’s sort of what I’m saying. And of course everybody’s different. But basically I was trying to say that if you’re a 6’7" guy on a BCS league team and average 15 ppg, it’s going to be perceived as a more proven player than if you’re a 6’7" guy in the MAC, that averaged 15 ppg.
But it is a tough call. Who knows if a player like Eddie was allowed to develop more by coming to Charlotte than if he had gone to a BCS league team.
Same deal for Henry. I’m not sure if he would have developed more at IU or not. But I do believe if he had gone to IU, and averaged the same #s that he averaged at Charlotte, he would have definitely gotten more looks and exposure.
I’ve even thought about that more with Withers and Demarco. I can’t help but think if either of those guys had gone to a BCS school they would have definitely been drafted.[/QUOTE]
I agree on Henry.
Ooo, and Demarco. How could I’ve forgotten? Too painful I suppose. Fwiw, In college I wouldn’t have traded Demarco for Jamison.
There’s a tighter comparison. If you were to compare their CVs in June of '98 the biggest difference would’ve been the hyphen. No need to mention: Jamison went fourth, Demarco 38th: Freakin disgusting. There you go, the poster case for BCSism.
[QUOTE=anipalcraig;436621]Should, maybe. It sounds plausible. But I don’t want to agree.
I’m thinking of Eddie Basden. Are you telling me he’d have been wiser to’ve gone the ACC route? What about Henry Williams? Would he’ve gone in the first round had he chosen IU over us?
I don’t see it. (There’s probably a study on this.)
[/QUOTE]
All of these players have one thing in common…they played a position at Charlotte at a high level that they weren’t physically suited for at the NBA level.
Henry played SG here…due to size needed to play PG in the NBA…he’s not a PG at all.
Jarvis & Demarco played the 4 here…was too small to play the 4 in the NBA and would have needed to play the 3…was not a 3.
Eddie was a great 3 for us…had SG size for the NBA and was NO WHERE near a SG.
The difference in BCS vs Non-BCS isn’t skillset…it’s the combination of SIZE and skillset.
At Indiana…I’m sure Henry would have seen more bench time behind a true PG and a Bigger…more traditional 2G. Even if he did succeded at Indiana, his PG size and SG skills would have eventually resulted in the same pro career.
But he may have gotton more of a benefit of the doubt on trade day.
[QUOTE=TRLeader;436652]All of these players have one thing in common…they played a position at Charlotte at a high level that they weren’t physically suited for at the NBA level.
Henry played SG here…due to size needed to play PG in the NBA…he’s not a PG at all.
Jarvis & Demarco played the 4 here…was too small to play the 4 in the NBA and would have needed to play the 3…was not a 3.
Eddie was a great 3 for us…had SG size for the NBA and was NO WHERE near a SG.
The difference in BCS vs Non-BCS isn’t skillset…it’s the combination of SIZE and skillset.
At Indiana…I’m sure Henry would have seen more bench time behind a true PG and a Bigger…more traditional 2G. Even if he did succeded at Indiana, his PG size and SG skills would have eventually resulted in the same pro career.
But he may have gotton more of a benefit of the doubt on trade day.[/QUOTE]
Very good point, I’ve been thinking the same thing for years. I think typical NBA positions height are as follows.
PG- 6’3 or below (Jason Kidd is actually listed as 6’4)
SG- 6’4 - 6’6 (Jordan and Kobe are both 6’6)
SF- 6’6 - 6’8 (6’8 is a stretch but Mike Miller is a 6’8 SF)
PF- 6’9 - 6’11 (Duncan)
C - 6’11 and above.
Typical 49er roster
PG - 6’0 and below
SG - 6’2 (Jobey was 6’4 and we know how that worked out)
SF - 6’4-6’5
PF - 6’6 - 6’8
C - 6’8 and any warm body we can find that’s bigger.
It’s just the reality of the situation, the bigger guys with the skills are top 50 kids. I really don’t care if we have 5 guys 6 feet tall if we win, but the NBA doesn’t see it that way.
[QUOTE=EE9er;436668]Very good point, I’ve been thinking the same thing for years. I think typical NBA positions height are as follows.
PG- 6’3 or below (Jason Kidd is actually listed as 6’4)
SG- 6’4 - 6’6 (Jordan and Kobe are both 6’6)
SF- 6’6 - 6’8 (6’8 is a stretch but Mike Miller is a 6’8 SF)
PF- 6’9 - 6’11 (Duncan)
C - 6’11 and above.
Typical 49er roster
PG - 6’0 and below
SG - 6’2 (Jobey was 6’4 and we know how that worked out)
SF - 6’4-6’5
PF - 6’6 - 6’8
C - 6’8 and any warm body we can find that’s bigger.
It’s just the reality of the situation, the bigger guys with the skills are top 50 kids. I really don’t care if we have 5 guys 6 feet tall if we win, but the NBA doesn’t see it that way.[/QUOTE]
True- we tend to have a lot of tweeners. Rodney was the guy with the skillset and size, but I fear he didn’t have the heart. Got paid though.