Mark Cuban Blasts NCAA Basketball

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How many players from Spain, Lithuania and Argentina are All-Stars in the NBA?

And the US has both a high school system and a club system that helps identify players from all over pro leagues to show who can play. But I would bet that those countries have much better soccer players that are world wide stars than basketball.

The game of basketball is dribbling, passing, shooting and defense. None of those things have anything to do with 5 second different on a shot clock. I do not think LeBron James or Kobe Bryant were hurt dramatically because they did not have a shot clock in high school. And even Kobe had to develop for his first several years in the NBA.

Peace

You had to make me go and do the math didn't you.

Roughly 22% of NBA is international players (non USA).

The three countries you asked about account for 11 players in the league of which there are 2 - 2 time allstars and 1 5 time allstar.

I don't think 5 less seconds requires you to be more skilled, but 11 less seconds and fewer timeouts and the ability to only called them on dead balls not interrupt play would all combine to make players need to be able to make more plays and more shots. It would also require coaches to make players who can make decision and create vs run stuff.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

You had to make me go and do the math didn't you.

Roughly 22% of NBA is international players (non USA).

The three countries you asked about account for 11 players in the league of which there are 2 - 2 time allstars and 1 5 time allstar.

I don't think 5 less seconds requires you to be more skilled, but 11 less seconds and fewer timeouts and the ability to only called them on dead balls not interrupt play would all combine to make players need to be able to make more plays and more shots. It would also require coaches to make players who can make decision and create vs run stuff.

That is the real difference....players having to operate more on their own. A slightly shorter shot clock would have very little difference. Relatively few possessions get into the last 5-10 seconds anyway.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

You had to make me go and do the math didn't you.

Roughly 22% of NBA is international players (non USA).

The three countries you asked about account for 11 players in the league of which there are 2 - 2 time allstars and 1 5 time allstar.

I don't think 5 less seconds requires you to be more skilled, but 11 less seconds and fewer timeouts and the ability to only called them on dead balls not interrupt play would all combine to make players need to be able to make more plays and more shots. It would also require coaches to make players who can make decision and create vs run stuff.

And what does any of this prove? The best players in the NBA are not international players. And I would suspect that just like in the case of those international players, they were also developed by their teams to run the offenses or to defend the way they wish.

And again, the rules changes are not going to prevent someone from learning how to better dribble, shoot, pass or defend.

Most of the contact rules are the same (until you get in the post) and the NCAA brought back the 3 point line (scoring is at a low) a few years ago. Some want to open up the lane, which I see little or no benefit for that when you cannot shoot any better or have no diversity to your game. And that also does not help if the coaches want to run clock or run their their sets multiple times.

Peace

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And what does any of this prove? The best players in the NBA are not international players. And I would suspect that just like in the case of those international players, they were also developed by their teams to run the offenses or to defend the way they wish.

And again, the rules changes are not going to prevent someone from learning how to better dribble, shoot, pass or defend.

Most of the contact rules are the same (until you get in the post) and the NCAA brought back the 3 point line (scoring is at a low) a few years ago. Some want to open up the lane, which I see little or no benefit for that when you cannot shoot any better or have no diversity to your game. And that also does not help if the coaches want to run clock or run their their sets multiple times.

Peace

What does this prove? Not sure it proves anything you asked a question and I answered it.

Players are developed to run the offenses and defenses their clubs want. With the unique difference in most international setting at the youth level the priority is not winning or avoiding being cut. Its developing your skills as the club is going to keep you in some capacity form youth until adult levels, your skill development determining which team you play on into your adult years.

Rules don't prevent someone from becoming a skilled player, but some rules can allow coaches to hide less skilled players or at least not put a premium on individual skill.


We can agree to disagree. I think that if you change ENOUGH rules to make the game speed up, to take the ball out of the coaches hands, and eliminate the abilty to run sets and offenses mulitple times per possession, and increase the freqquency with which players have to attack/be creative (when scoring happens and when most fouls occur) . . . then in the long term you end up with coaches and players needing to value the ability to create, make shots, handle the ball etc not just who you can defend how and your ability to run their stuff. If the players and coaches value skills over tactics then that trickle down increases your number of players who can handle, create and make shots. Also with simple math if you increase the number of possessions and reduce the amount of breaks all while increasing the situations where teams may foul, then each team needs to recruit/develop more skilled players.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

What does this prove? Not sure it proves anything you asked a question and I answered it.

I was not asking a question for the answer. I really do not care what the percentage of players come from international places. I already know that the main players that go to the NBA are coming from the United States. That is obvious. And since the top players are not coming from international places (like the top All-Stars or MVP candidates) then it really does not matter to me what rules international players play under and seems to not make that big of an overall difference. And I still feel the NBA needs to concentrate on developing their players, not worry about rules that help their game.

The NFL has way more rules differences from college and college has way more rules than NF or HS. No one complains about how they cannot develop players at the NFL level. Actually NFL coaches seem to think they can teach their systems even when a player comes from different systems.

Peace

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I was not asking a question for the answer. I really do not care what the percentage of players come from international places. I already know that the main players that go to the NBA are coming from the United States. That is obvious. And since the top players are not coming from international places (like the top All-Stars or MVP candidates) then it really does not matter to me what rules international players play under and seems to not make that big of an overall difference. And I still feel the NBA needs to concentrate on developing their players, not worry about rules that help their game.

The NFL has way more rules differences from college and college has way more rules than NF or HS. No one complains about how they cannot develop players at the NFL level. Actually NFL coaches seem to think they can teach their systems even when a player comes from different systems.

Peace

So this is a more valid argument the years the Nash or Nowitski were winning MVPS's? Or when US national mens team got smoked?

As far as I can tell you feel like if the NBA wants more skilled players they should develop them, if the NCAA wants more skilled players they should develop them, and I can only assume that your reasoning then applies downward as such . . . If you have an issue in your dept you fix it. At no point to company policices, rules or the system itself need to be questioned simply for the sake of growth . . . if you are meeting your goals - status quo, when you are not change. No systemic issues to address just departmental. Dont' try to stay ahead of the curve or adopt innovations unless we have to . . .

You are right in that development can happen regardless of rule set. Development can also happen for players in the face of bad coaching or circumstances. They find ways to overcome. That doesn't mean the system shouldn't be changed to minimize faults/weaknesses or grow areas of stregtt. Winning doesn't mean you are doing it the best way possible, just better then everyone else is currently. USA has great basketball and the worlds best basketball players, does that mean you shouldn't try to make a better system or method for creating more of them.

No one ever feels like guys stats or draft stock are inflated by NCAA football systems. I guess you've never heard of a QB being referred to not being able to fit in a pro system. . . but . . . nevermind selecting a non 360 degree sport where players only play either offense or defense and specialize skill sets and position is probably a great example for discussion of a sport where the entire game is going to more universal players vs 1 dimensional.

If you want to talk about other sports lets talk about soccer the skills and movements and universality of most players is a closer link to basketball. USA soccer has adopted a long term athlete development model that now guides and supports team selections, coaching methodolgy and helps to determine rule sets from top to bottom national team to youth leagues.

Almost every top basketball playing nation in the world has a long term athlete development plan and model except the USA they continue to trust in conflitcing AAU and School systems to generate enough athletes for the NCAA and NBA/ d-leagues to develop players. Your probably right trying to align rule sets or create a development first model for basketball as a national community couldn't possibly help.


Well off topic now . . . sorry.

[Kelvin green]

I am sure I will be one of the loners on a limb but after watching the Tournament, he's closer to being right than we want to admit.

I think the shot clock is too long. Interesting the men need more time to shoot than women.

Scoring is terrible. As was stated earlier, it is too one dimensional. There are too many players in the NCAA that take it to the basket when they never should. It is too physical (maybe a better term is out of control physical)
I have officiated very physical NBA plAyers and they are always more in control than college players.

I did not like the White Castle remark but there was some officiating that I really wondered about. The thing the NBA can do that the NCAA can't is get officials closer together on the way they want the game called. Does nit matter if you like NBA or nit they do strive for consistency. The fact the league makes comments on every call in the last two minutes means they are trying for correctness and consistency.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

So this is a more valid argument the years the Nash or Nowitski were winning MVPS's? Or when US national mens team got smoked?

Nash's MVP awards were controversial. Many today think that Shaq for example was robbed and so was Kobe in his two years. Secondly that was the only time when the US team did not win Gold. Not Bronze, Gold. In 18 Olympics the United States won Gold in 15 of those games. I think the USA is doing just fine and most of those were at a time when not a single shot clock was in the game certainly at the high school level. There is no other country doing anything better in any Olympic sport in a similar team sport. Since pro players have been apart of the USA did not win once.

Now maybe you can explain to me what other country could match that record?

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

As far as I can tell you feel like if the NBA wants more skilled players they should develop them, if the NCAA wants more skilled players they should develop them, and I can only assume that your reasoning then applies downward as such . . . If you have an issue in your dept you fix it. At no point to company policices, rules or the system itself need to be questioned simply for the sake of growth . . . if you are meeting your goals - status quo, when you are not change. No systemic issues to address just departmental. Dont' try to stay ahead of the curve or adopt innovations unless we have to . . .

With all due respect, I do not see the interest you claim to be an issue. USA Basketball is about as powerful a dynasty as any other in the world in any other sport. Soccer has no such rival in accomplishment as the USA Basketball teams. And the NBA and your boy Mark Cuban does not even want his players to play international basketball. So now you want the rest of the United States to change policies to fund a pro league that only benefits the owners and not the USA program. OK, that makes since. Is the NBA going to fund basketball programs like MLB does with youth baseball? If the goal is to develop players, you need to do more than change one or two rules I would think.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

You are right in that development can happen regardless of rule set. Development can also happen for players in the face of bad coaching or circumstances. They find ways to overcome. That doesn't mean the system shouldn't be changed to minimize faults/weaknesses or grow areas of stregtt. Winning doesn't mean you are doing it the best way possible, just better then everyone else is currently. USA has great basketball and the worlds best basketball players, does that mean you shouldn't try to make a better system or method for creating more of them.

Like I said, USA basketball and the NBA are not the same thing. Is the NBA going to change their rules to fit into the FIBA system? Even players that play International Basketball, there is a claim they must adjust a little, but for some strange reason they seem to excel.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Almost every top basketball playing nation in the world has a long term athlete development plan and model except the USA they continue to trust in conflitcing AAU and School systems to generate enough athletes for the NCAA and NBA/ d-leagues to develop players. Your probably right trying to align rule sets or create a development first model for basketball as a national community couldn't possibly help.

OK but the USA is dominating in basketball professionally and internationally. And guys like Cuban talks about what the NCAA does without putting his money up to change the system. If Cuban wants players to be developed at the lower levels, invest money in the NCAA or their own programs if they want only NBA players. Players from high school only go into college because there is no such league or level allowed to play otherwise unless they go overseas. And most players will never play college, let alone some other league even if you had such a league. Not sure what interest you think NCAA has in what the NBA does and they are not getting money in return. Because even the one and done rule is an NBA concoction, not a NCAA classification or standard.

Peace