Hint
We haven't been to a final four in 20 years.
Hint
Cal never won a title.
Hint
The best of the rest are not nearly as good as the elite. Pretty common knowledge.
How you guys don't get this is so odd.
vol fan here with a question about the one and done rule
- Thread starter akavff
- Start date
Hint
We haven't been to a final four in 20 years.
Hint
Cal never won a title.
Hint
The best of the rest are not nearly as good as the elite. Pretty common knowledge.
How you guys don't get this is so odd.
One advantage of the One-and-Done: Since Cal signs 5 or more per year, that keeps other elite schools from signing them.
We'd still be getting the best available players every year - and developing them over multiple years. How is that less competitive than what we're currently doing?
If a kid is good enough out of high school to go to the NBA, then let them go. You can do it in other sports, go right to the pros, so why not basketball?!?! Yes the physicality of the NBA is miles ahead of high school, but the kids know that going in.
You can't prove it, not on our scale of success we have had.
I can guarantee you no title in 2012 if Cal starts with the roster he inherited.
This is common sense.
Our elites are game changers, some of our highly ranked ones are not ready yet and many on here trash them.
Imagine an entire class every year not ready?
The kids today are bigger and stronger the amount of straight to the league kids or those attempting would skyrocket.
You think we can dominate like we have with A- and B players?
And we would not be where we are today.
What is wrong with you people?
Our super elites still have trouble with other teams but you want lesser talent?
With no star power and level the playing field and take away our advantage...great idea.
Calm down bub, no one is upset. Just some discussion. And yes, I would like to think if you're good enough to go pro right out of HS you should be allowed to. UK will still get the best of the best available.
Carolina just won a title and had the best team in the tournament because they had kids stay more than a year. People act like having one and dones is the only way to win. Its not. UK will still get the best of the best available, regardless of the rule. It makes no sense to hold kids back if they're good enough right out of school. Pretty common knowledge, like you said.
First, only Wall was considered a one and done going into college in his class, AD in his class so some of these guys would have been here any way. Second we have only won ONE title, so it is not like we are knocking on UCLA's door. UK has been successful and will always be successful no matter what they system the NBA has in place.
Incredible thinking.
We get the majority of the elites and you guys want to take that advantage away.
Cal has been to 2 FFs prior to coming here. Without Rose he probably only has one.
UK hasn't seen a FF since 98.
You guys have zero proof that we would be as good when the past 20 years says differently.
We could compete eventually but we have dominated, just not closed the deal in 2 title games. (Edit: 1, Whisky, I know not a title game)
Amazing you guys don't see this.
Had we won the last 5 mins vs UW and beat UConn this would never come up.
But 15 mins of basketball and you guys can't see our advantage.
Last edited:
And you can't prove that we wouldn't be just as successful.
None of us know what our roster in 2012 would have been. Both of us can probably guess that we would be competitive year in and year out, just like we are now.
IMO, we would be recruiting similar to what UNC does, who signs very good players, but doesn't sign the best of the best on a regular basis....they didn't do too shabby the past 2 years.
Imagine players staying 2 and 3 years like NOVA and UNC
I disagree that we have dominated. I think we could be just as successful with a different recruiting philosophy if players went straight to the NBA.
IMO, you're not giving Cal nearly enough credit. Cal was a great coach before the 1 and done and he would be a great coach again without the 1 and done.
This is proof you are basing this off of us barely losing titles.
Multiple titles - the ones we didn't sniff for 20 years.
Keep thinking that, I'll go with the evidence of the last 8 years:
UK + Cal + OAD = better than the straight to league opinions.
Louisville fan logic is selective time frames. You're better than that. We get a couple bad coaches after Pitino and that's how UK basketball is supposed to be, huh? How about all the years before that? UK basketball will be fine no matter what.
How do the teams compare vs us the last 8 years?
You want one good run like Nova and UL every decade?
Not a good argument, we are the winningest program the last 8 years or were.
Let 38-1 keep you guys butt hurt we were super close to 3 titles, was UL or Nova?
You can use the 1940's and 50's I'm using the OAD timeframe the topic of discussion.
Prior to the OAD we went years until 75 FF, then 78 title, then another 18 years, 98 to 11 years without a FF...
And you have zero proof that we wouldn't be as good.
Not sure what 2 title games you're talking about.
Here is where you and I differ. I'm looking at this from a players perspective and what I feel is best for an 18 year old kid. I'm taking my UK bias out of this. If we all truly care about what is best for an 18 year old kid, then we would allow them to make money straight out of high school without going overseas. That is all I am saying. I understand that it means we would not get a kid like Wall, Davis and Cousins. I understand that it means Cal would have to change his recruiting philosophy (I have faith that he would be just fine). I'm not debating this with you because I don't want the best of the best. I am saying this because I want the best for an 18 year old kid.
Since Cal's been here I think we've had the best team twice. The teams that have been better than us have had a lot more players returning than we have. Even on those two teams, guess what? WE HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE BACK!
That is insane. Cousins would be gone as well as others.
This isn't the early 90's the NBA sees the kids a lot very early.
I laugh at the idea that there's no way we could be as good without the OAD. There is absolutely no proof that Cal would struggle at UK with different rules. Zero.
If you want to advocate for the kids fine that doesn't mean it isn't the best thing for U.K. And most of the time the player themselves.
A year of college vs HS to NBA allows for some adjustment, if you really care about the kids.
I wrote in a post above that I would revamp the NBDL with higher salaries and have high schools kids enter the NBDL Draft. Play in that league for a year, making money and being evaluated, scouted by NBA teams, then they can enter the NBA draft. Win for the kid being paid a decent salary straight out of high school and win for NBA teams being able to evaluate talent.
Sure there is.
No OAD and no Rose - No FF for Cal
No OAD and Cal has our garbage roster that was created pre-OAD strategy.
2010 isn't EE
2011 lose PPat and get who?
Knight and Jones could have been straight to league - No FF
2012 No AD, no TJ no MKG - no title
2014 - no title game - No Randle
2015 - no KAT
I can come up with a scenario easily what is yours that would equal our success without our OAD's???
You and I differ there too. I think Cal would adjust to the new rules just fine and i think we would be just as successful. I know you disagree with that.
I'm more or less saying that more experience with less talent is just as good as no experience at all and more talent. Recent champions have proved this. Cal would still get the best of the best players that were coming to college, and he would get them in his system for 3 or 4 years. Add in the fact that this rule applies for every coach, and I don't see how UK still isn't at the top of the food chain.
I can't really give an example, the rule I think would benefit college ball has never been in place. Just seems silly to me to hold kids back when they don't need to be held back. Not only silly, but just wrong.
It would take longer, and no I don't agree that we would be as competitive EVERY year.
Cal is great but it's the jimmy and joes too.
I will admit I haven't read this entire thread, just the first few posts.
To answer the questions:
1. I would prefer to have players longer. I think everyone would.
2. I would not prefer the NBA change the rule back to allowing high school seniors in the draft. I love the fact that the college game gets a look at these great players before they go to the NBA. Removing these elite players hurts the college game, in my opinion. It also potentially hurts the NBA, when they take big risks on unproven players based on perceived potential alone.
3. I don't think the NBA owners will ever agree to allowing high school players enter draft again.
4. I think the best solution, for all parties, including the NCAA, is a 2-and-done rule. I don't think the NFL rule, which requires 3 years, or the MLB rule, which allows them to declare straight from H.S. but then allows them to attend college somewhere, will fly, either. So, requiring players to be 2 years removed from high school would be a bit of a compromise.
This 2-and-done rule was on the table a few years back, but it never materialized.
To answer the questions:
1. I would prefer to have players longer. I think everyone would.
2. I would not prefer the NBA change the rule back to allowing high school seniors in the draft. I love the fact that the college game gets a look at these great players before they go to the NBA. Removing these elite players hurts the college game, in my opinion. It also potentially hurts the NBA, when they take big risks on unproven players based on perceived potential alone.
3. I don't think the NBA owners will ever agree to allowing high school players enter draft again.
4. I think the best solution, for all parties, including the NCAA, is a 2-and-done rule. I don't think the NFL rule, which requires 3 years, or the MLB rule, which allows them to declare straight from H.S. but then allows them to attend college somewhere, will fly, either. So, requiring players to be 2 years removed from high school would be a bit of a compromise.
This 2-and-done rule was on the table a few years back, but it never materialized.
Debating morality and what is best for us are 2 different things.
As to the morality issue the NBA is an employer and can set what they want just like any other biz owner.
Totally agree. I just think UK would be fine no matter what the rule, and that college basketball as a whole would be better with a team full of PJ Washington's and Tyler Ulis' for 3 years instead of freshman coming and going as often as they do.
Good debate, Brian. Enjoy reading your stuff.
2AD would be just the same as guys going straight out of high school IMO. The top guys would go overseas or find a way to make money and skip college. I don't think 2AD would work how people perceive it too. Guys like Wall, Cousins and AD would find a way to make money and not go for 2 years.
agreed....but obviously being a tennessee fan we are just on the outside looking in on how this affects our own program
That is a possibility bthaunert, but I think the majority would stay and go to college for 2 years.
Go back and look at the original projections out of high school, Cousins and Bledsoe were not considered one and done prospects, Orton definitely was not. Just saying if they were allowed to go straight from hish school, Wall most likely would have been the only one of the 3. But it still doesn't matter, in my opinion if a kid wants to try he should be allowed to go right out of high school. This one and done rule is just the NBA protecting their own interests.
I just don't see it. Going to college from August - April before cashing in is one thing. Waiting 12 more months is another. I really think that this would never work for the elite guys, but it would work for a guys like Devin Booker and Eric Bledsoe.
As the NBA should. They are not a welfare system.
Do you complain at all the employers who require a BS degree for a job that truly doesn't require one?
