Big10 tough in BBall???

[Cyclonestate78]

I don't get why 99% of fans love George Mason, VCU, Butler runs, but it seems around 50% of college football fans seem to cheer against Boise State, Utah, TCU getting into BCS games even when they go on to prove themselves like blowing out #3 Alabama.

As good as George Mason, VCU and Butler were in those tournaments, it's quite possible those programs could have never built themselves to that point playing in the Big East or Big 12 year after year.

If you have a forum post asking what teams you hate most in college football, lots of people will throw Boise State in there. Don't see any of that toward bracket buster tourney teams. In reality it's obvious that it's simply selfish rationalizing, they know Boise State is easily good enough to get one of the 10 BCS spots, but they want it for their own team or conference even though they may not deserve it. With 68 teams the deserving mid majors aren't really squeezing out a significant number of the power conference teams.

When referring to Boise State follow the same logic you used with the bolded portion of your post. In basketball 68 teams get into the NCAA Tournament. What if only 10 teams got invited into the NCAA Tournament? Murray State is 25-1 or something crazy like that this season. Would they deserve a bid over North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, Ohio State, Syracuse, Mizzou, Kentucky, Baylor, Michigan State, or Georgetown? Have they played a schedule even remotely close to the caliber of any of the 10 teams I listed?

Murray State is a great story and they will get their chance to play with some of the big boys come March but it isn't like a top 10 team is getting bumped out of the tournament to make room for them.

[Cydkar]

My issue with 1 and done players is simple. It is a built in advantage for the elite college basketball programs. Every basketball program is trying to stockpile their roster with talent. A program like ISU has a great need to bring in players that will be in the program for 3 or 4 years because they can't replace lost talent as easily and stability is absolutely necessary when trying to improve the program. Does a program like ISU take the risk of leaving a hole in their roster by taking a 1 and done player to have quick success over a 3 or 4 year player that is good but not great? It's a pretty big gamble.

Programs like Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, Ohio State, etc... don't have that concern. They can bring in 2 or 3 kids for a season and ship them off to the NBA and they will just simply replace them with McDonald's All-Americans the next year and more 1 and done players. They have no risk at all by taking a 1 and done player because recruiting isn't an issue. That is why programs like Kentucky who can already attract the best talent in the nation has a distinct advantage. How many 1 and done players has Kentucky had in the last 3 or 4 years? It has allowed these elite programs that were already basketball factories to become even more efficient at what they do. In a 2 year span Kentucky had six 1 and done players and they didn't even skip a beat. They likely have two or three 1 and done players on their roster this year as well. The 1 and done rule has literally turned Kentucky into an NBA D-League franchise which defeats the entire purpose of what the NCAA is supposed to be all about.... STUDENT/athletes.

This also creates a monopoly of the top talent by the elite programs. Kentucky only has so many scholarships they can offer because they can only have so many players on their roster. They can only play 5 kids at a time. Lack of available scholarships and lack of playing time at these elite basketball factories could send some of these top recruits to other non-elite programs. Instead places like Kentucky can turnover 3 or 4 scholarships every year making sure they can bring in the top players from the next years recruiting class to replace their top recruits from the previous year. It's ridiculous.

ISU has TWO guaranteed one and done players waiting for next year!! Where have you been the last 6 months?

[Cyclonestate78]

ISU has TWO guaranteed one and done players waiting for next year!! Where have you been the last 6 months?

I see. Both are freshman and heading straight to the NBA after 1 year on campus?

[Cydkar]

I see. Both are freshman and heading straight to the NBA after 1 year on campus?

What's the difference? They go completely against your first paragraph. ISU would take your definition of a 1 and done in a heartbeat.

[Cyclonestate78]

While I don't necessarily agree with the "1 and done" college rule, your arguments seem irrational and bitter.

To claim that programs like ISU wouldn't take a potential "1 and done" player because it's such a gamble is a joke. Correct me if I'm wrong but ISU recruited Harrison Barnes for a very long time, and while he decided to come back to UNC for his sophomore year, he could've easily been a top 3 draft pick had he come out after year one. To say it's this huge risk/gamble is flat out ridiculous. Any school in the country would take a player who has the potential to be a lottery pick the following year in the draft. A player like that could flat out change a program by himself. You get a player with that type of talent to come to ISU, and instantly you're on the national scene. You get all sorts of national media coverage and hype, and you also get all sorts of talented recruits taking notice of this and wanting to come to ISU and play alongside this stud. Sure, you're going to have to re-recruit somebody else if that player leaves, but without a doubt you'll have more recruits interested in ISU if you start bringing in those types of players.

I didn't claim they wouldn't take them. For a program like ISU it comes with risk. ISU might have to potentially shoot down a 3 or 4 year player that normally they would take without question so they can try and hit the jackpot for 1 year. There is no guarantee that they will be able to get a similarly talented kid to the 3 or 4 year player they let walk to replace him after the 1 and done player leaves. That is a risk that basketball factories like Kentucky don't have to worry about.

[CyJack13]

I don't really agree. I get the point that the fans get to see great players for 1 year, which is better than none. But if a kid has no interest in going to college, why is he (basically) forced to? If people are willing to pay him out of college to play basketball, then why can't he get paid to do it?

I think you should have a rule where you either go pro out of HS, or you have to stay at least 2 years.

He can. Go to Europe or the NBDL. If a player only cared about becoming the best possible player he could be, he would go play in Europe for a year instead of in college.

[Taco]

I didn't claim they wouldn't take them. For a program like ISU it comes with risk. ISU might have to potentially shoot down a 3 or 4 year player that normally they would take without question so they can try and hit the jackpot for 1 year. There is no guarantee that they will be able to get a similarly talented kid to the 3 or 4 year player they let walk to replace him after the 1 and done player leaves. That is a risk that basketball factories like Kentucky don't have to worry about.

Haha, there's a risk with every single high school athlete that signs that they're not going to produce and be a 3-4 year player. You would rather say "nah, we'll pass on this 5 star player who has the talent to go to the NBA next year if he decides to declare, and he a guy like him only comes around to ISU every so often, for some decent guy who may or may not pan out and be a player for us for a couple years." There's a risk in every single kid that signs his name on the dotted line to play for a school; a risk they may get injured, they may transfer, may not make grades, etc. Look at ISU's class in 2010, the 5 players signed were Ejim, Railey, Godfrey, McKnight, and Phillips. How many of them are still around? That was Harrison's class, and Harrison, who was a potential "1 and done" is still playing at UNC.

And to state that Kentucky doesn't have any risks is a joke. They have much more of a risk than ISU would by signing one or two "1 and done's", Kentucky is having to constantly recruit players every single year because the majority of their players are "1 and done". There is no guarantee that every top rated recruit will sign with Kentucky, thus if they don't get a good class one year, and were relying primarily on these "1 and done's", they're screwed.

[dtISU]

Haha, there's a risk with every single high school athlete that signs that they're not going to produce and be a 3-4 year player. You would rather say "nah, we'll pass on this 5 star player who has the talent to go to the NBA next year if he decides to declare, and he a guy like him only comes around to ISU every so often, for some decent guy who may or may not pan out and be a player for us for a couple years." There's a risk in every single kid that signs his name on the dotted line to play for a school; a risk they may get injured, they may transfer, may not make grades, etc. Look at ISU's class in 2010, the 5 players signed were Ejim, Railey, Godfrey, McKnight, and Phillips. How many of them are still around? That was Harrison's class, and Harrison, who was a potential "1 and done" is still playing at UNC.

And to state that Kentucky doesn't have any risks is a joke. They have much more of a risk than ISU would by signing one or two "1 and done's", Kentucky is having to constantly recruit players every single year because the majority of their players are "1 and done". There is no guarantee that every top rated recruit will sign with Kentucky, thus if they don't get a good class one year, and were relying primarily on these "1 and done's", they're screwed.

Dude, it's Kentucky. They recruit one and dones every year because playing for the Wildcats gives you the exposure you need to move up. Kentucky is ALWAYS going to be recruiting the cream of the crop - just like KU, Duke and UCONN (well, usually UCONN.)

[CyJack13]

Dude, it's Kentucky. They recruit one and dones every year because playing for the Wildcats gives you the exposure you need to move up. Kentucky is ALWAYS going to be recruiting the cream of the crop - just like KU, Duke and UCONN (well, usually UCONN.)

Tubby Smith was not bringing in top classes when he was at Kentucky. One and done's want to play for Cal more than they want to go to Kentucky.

[Cydkar]

I didn't claim they wouldn't take them. For a program like ISU it comes with risk. ISU might have to potentially shoot down a 3 or 4 year player that normally they would take without question so they can try and hit the jackpot for 1 year. There is no guarantee that they will be able to get a similarly talented kid to the 3 or 4 year player they let walk to replace him after the 1 and done player leaves. That is a risk that basketball factories like Kentucky don't have to worry about.

I think it's a risk that 99% of coaches will take until they are burned by it. There are 1 and done guys who turn out to be 2-3 and done and then you've hit a jackpot. Barnes and T. Jones to name a couple.

[dtISU]

Tubby Smith was not bringing in top classes when he was at Kentucky. One and done's want to play for Cal more than they want to go to Kentucky.

That was Tubby. And 1 or 2 year players are the type that Calipari has always recruited, no matter where he's been. The best of the best.

[Taco]

Dude, it's Kentucky. They recruit one and dones every year because playing for the Wildcats gives you the exposure you need to move up. Kentucky is ALWAYS going to be recruiting the cream of the crop - just like KU, Duke and UCONN (well, usually UCONN.)

Dude, I understand that it's Kentucky. Most years they are going to get one and done's, but there is still a risk involved. That's what the other poster was trying to say about too much risk involved for ISU to recruit one and done's. Sorry, but there is a lot more risk for schools like Kentucky, KU, etc to recruit one and dones every single year, than there would be for ISU to take a chance and sign one, "one and done".

[Taco]

That was Tubby. And 1 or 2 year players are the type that Calipari has always recruited, no matter where he's been. The best of the best.

Yeah, but that's not what you said. You said schools like Kentucky, KU, Duke, etc. are ALWAYS going to recruit the cream of the crop, ala "1 and dones".

[dtISU]

Yeah, but that's not what you said. You said schools like Kentucky, KU, Duke, etc. are ALWAYS going to recruit the cream of the crop, ala "1 and dones".

I understand what you're saying, bit one is not necessarily equal to the other. The cream of the crop does not equate to one and done. Look at some of the outstanding players that play three or four years at those schools.

[HFCS]

When referring to Boise State follow the same logic you used with the bolded portion of your post. In basketball 68 teams get into the NCAA Tournament. What if only 10 teams got invited into the NCAA Tournament? Murray State is 25-1 or something crazy like that this season. Would they deserve a bid over North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, Ohio State, Syracuse, Mizzou, Kentucky, Baylor, Michigan State, or Georgetown? Have they played a schedule even remotely close to the caliber of any of the 10 teams I listed?

Murray State is a great story and they will get their chance to play with some of the big boys come March but it isn't like a top 10 team is getting bumped out of the tournament to make room for them.

It would be more like if a good Butler team got left out of the NCAA tournament after proving they belong finishing second two years in a row.

Boise State has proven they belong, were ranked in the top 8 of the BCS standings and still got snubbed, all the while half of college football fans have some irrational hatred for them.

If Murray State had proven itself a top team over a 5-10 year period like BSU has the comparison would make some sense. Even Gonzaga basketball is a poor man's BSU football if you want to compare non power conference teams.