I don't need scholastic research. You are straddling the fence because it goes against what you are trying to argue. You make a poll with thousands of parents, asking them if their 18 year old would be responsible with a million dollars. Or would they think 4 years of college is more likely going to make them more responsible; they would answer the later. But you go ahead and reach for the stars. You are losing footing
I do like some empirical evidence of such claims. From what I see, some people are just idiots. Some who have money, some who lose it all. Seems more likely to be an upbringing thing and who the people hook up with to trust with their finances. But that's all drawn from anecdotal evidence. I don't care to make a poll, I'm not the one making any sort of claim. You are.
Its as simple as looking at gambling and drinking ages in the US. The majority of States have 21 years old as the age; yet you are considered an adult at age 18. So why the increase of age for responsibilities like drinking and gambling? One would assume that hypothetically a 21 year old would hold more responsibility than an 18 year old. But you go boy! Keep on keeping on.
Nobody gets drunk on college campuses. Nope. Nada. Nobody. No one. Drinking age laws are blue laws. If you care to look up what that means. Turning 18 doesn't make anyone an adult. it is no measure of maturity in the least.
The thing with the draft is its not a science and never will be, as much as everyone wishes they could master it. You can analyze the numbers all you want, you've got to look at each specific player individually and make a judgement call. And for all the background work being done, the situation they ultimately land in may have just as large of an effect on their ultimate success in the NBA. A lot of this is weighing upsides too. A GM may know the 3 or 4 year college guy is pretty likely to become some kind of rotation player while the one and done kid has a 20% chance of making it but if he does hes at least a starter if not better. I can see plenty of GMs going for the risky guy, as the safe bet isn't a difference maker in the scheme of things. But to add to the argument, I think a lot of these guys would be wasting time staying any longer in college. What would Anthony Davis have to gain returning to Kentucky? He dominated as a freshman. Continuing to shit on inferior talent isn't going to help him as much as spending the early years of his career developing against better talent. But you get plenty of guys who don't dominate the NCAA but were highly touted prospects and are very talented kids. Conventional wisdom says those guys need more time in college to get the mental part of the game down, to grow into being a dominant player before moving to the next level. They usually leave early anyway and ride the pine somewhere. Some drop and end up on good teams with strong cultures a la Avery Bradley or Lance Stevenson or Eric Bledsoe. A lot of sort of disappear into the abyss though and you look back and wonder what they could have done if they stayed in college 3 years. Also look at guys like Blake Griffin or Harrison Barnes who didn't have great freshman years but stayed just the one extra year in college. They still came out very young and with big potential, but they had some extra polish that likely helped them contribute as rookies despite still being raw. And yeah, as an 18 year old I absolutely thought I was a legitimate adult and pretty smart and mature. I'm 23 now and looking back at myself then, I was a complete fugging moron and still a child. And lets be honest, a lot of these guys come from poverty, single parent homes, from the hood, didn't take education seriously, probably have a highly inflated sense of self and a lot of hangers-on influencing them with agendas that aren't in their best interest. I think this is a big reason why a lot of these kids that go to NBA wastelands completely flame out while the ones who go to good teams with strong leadership and culture eventually pan out.
Denny's logic is irrefutable. I believe that a 12-year-old would spend his million more slowly than a 30-year-old. The NBA should have an upper age limit of 16.
Nice strawman Denny! LMAO @ you always complaining about strawman when you use it all the time. Anyway, is underage drinking illegal? If a student is caught drinking, they could be arrested, no? And to further expose your "straw man"; a person can speed, but that doesn't mean they aren't breaking the law. They just haven't been caught.
I guess going to college to learn to drink responsibly is what the drinking age nonsense is really about. It's no strawman. You brought up the drinking age thing, not me. I dont know what you're trying to prove because you make so little sense.
Well said! repp'd. And as I pointed out on the other thread, there are players that can handle the pressure of coming out early, but college experience can help them with the challenges and pressures of the NBA. I too thought I was an adult when I was 18. Looking back, I didn't even start growing up until I was 25
Okay scarecrow. Try and weasel your way out from your exposed straw man. And LMAO at the hyperbole to add to your straw man, that going to college is about drinking.... Christ Denny you are a terrible debater.
You aren't using logic. You're banging the table. As if insulting me makes your argument legitimate. A hint: it doesn't. Your use of facts is weak. Drinking age doesn't correlate to any person's actual maturity. For example. But all you have to do is look at those and it proves something. : mags :
Denny I'm not banging the table; I'm laughing at you. And to even hint that I'm giving you personal insults is somehow proving I'm wrong is a reach at best. The drinking age and "gambling" which you completely ignored are relevant. They didn't pick a number out of a hat Denny. The government doesn't believe a 18 year old is as responsible as a 21 year old. You lost Denny. Just stop digging a bigger hole
