Irrelevant to Olynyk's athletic ability. I'm not saying he's not skilled, because he is, he just makes Chris Dudley look like a Gerald Green-like leaper. Again, SHEESH!
The Olynyk Clinic is sweeping the nation and there's nothing Papa Daddio can do about it. So he better just suck it up and bare with it.
I like this question a lot. It'd make me sick to my stomach probably, but if he was available at 10 and the prognosis on his injury wasn't career threatening, then ... shit ... fuck ... damn. No, I don't think I could make myself pull the trigger, but I'd probably instantly regret it.
I don't know what these guys expect... they're rail thin and they're playing a sport that takes its toll on the body. In the case of Livingston, his knee just gave way. Couldn't take the pounding.
I don't know if you can blame a freak occurrence on an age limit. It's not like the guy is injury prone like Oden. He could have just as easily hurt his knee the same way at Tilton. Also, he doesn't have to come out this year. Honestly, he really isn't pro-ready. There are so many flaws with Nerlens' game that another year of college ball will only do him well. Just remember that the age limit is entirely an NBA construction, and when you look at the end result of the rule, it's helped the NBA and hurt the NCAA.
Not sure if I'll make any sense at this hour. Most of the stuff I post at this time of night, I wind up regretting writing, but there are so many ways that the rule hurts the NCAA that I can probably drunkenly think of a few off the top of my head. For example, the way that the ruling basically delegated the NCAA as a farm league has created a culture of "1-and-dones," hurts the overall recruiting process, and has resulted in hidden agendas, increased transfers, inflated egos, and a sloppier game in general. Teams like Kentucky, who encourage the "1-and-dones," not only hurt the game with what they're doing to the recruiting landscape, but they also hurt the collegiate game by encouraging teams to play a more individualized style of offense, just to bring in the big recruits. Nowadays, no big time recruit wants to play in Bo Ryan's swing offense, or compete in Tom Izzo's war drills. They'd rather go to the team that treats them as a celebrity and runs an offense that's ISO-heavy, likes to break and play fast, and doesn't place an emphasis on the defensive end of the floor. I also think a lot more of high school recruits are being hurt by this process than people realize. Even in 2001, it was usually only the "best of the best" recruits trying their hand by leaving early. There were a lot of guys who weren't ready and wound up being "busts," but those guys were the "elite" recruits of the time. Now that there's a "1-and-done" rule, it draws an unreasonable attention to the high school prospects, and that has not only a significant ripple effect on the collegiate game but it also affects the way that the prospects conduct their own recruitment. Now guys in the #15-25 recruit range are looking for schools that can make the "1-and-done," instead of looking for the right fit for them. As a result, you have a lot more inflated egos, a lot more transfers, and an overall headache for any coach that wants to recruit a top 25 recruit. In a nutshell, it used to be that the recruit was grateful to be apart of a premier program, but now the mindset is that the premier program should be grateful for the recruit, and that can only hurt the collegiate game.
Yeah, but I feel we see that same culture in NCAA football, and they require at least two years of play. I see what you're thinking though, but I would argue that this is sports in general now. It's more of a business than ever before. In fact, I would blame the internet age more than I would place the blame on the one-and-done rule. With youtube, twitter, etc, players are becoming more widely known than they would have ten years ago. Every recruit has a youtube video, and a twitter account, and there is an expectation that they will get to play, and that they are a star. It's an entire generation, and while you might be right and the one-and-done has contributed, I don't think it's even the largest factor.
I agree with you that the the internet age has added to prospects thinking more highly of themselves, but 19 year old age limit isn't exactly helping things, and in the big picture, it really diminishes the NCAA brand. I'll revisit this after I've slept off this Fat Tuesday though haha...
I like whenever NOVooDoo (VC) posts but I don't care if anything hurts the NCAA. I think the European system for farming talent is superior and more moral. These athletes need to get paid, I don't care what the state says.
this sucks i think i remember coach cal mentioning something about how all of the big recruits at UK have multi million dollar insurance policies? is that legal?
and cant really say about taking him at #10 or whatever until the news comes out, if its totally shredded, prolly not, if its a blake griffin thing then hell yeah
Agreed. Too much money is being made off these kids to not let them have a share. I think the one and done rule gets too much of the blame for the demise of college basketball. I think the days of the red ass coach like Bob Knight or one like BoRyan getting a top recruit went away with recruits making better judgement. For all its faults, the BCS makes the regular season mean something. NCAA basketball regular season means little since so many teams get in.
He will look great in a Blazers uniform next season when he slips and we get a "value" pick in the teens
Ahh. Oops. But this just highlights how significant that age rule is. Dude woulda made a few mil if he came out last year. Now, he has to get lucky enough to keep his scholarship so he can at least get a free education.
